Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richest places in the United Kingdom

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Richest places in the United Kingdom
No explanation as to what is meant by "richest", no indications of what makes these cities "rich". Original research? RickK 10:22, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its unlikely to be original research as lists of this sort are produced by the Office for National Statistics, building societies, banks, charities, market researchers, magazines, etc. All of them use different criteria, diffent areas (post codes, electoral wards, cities, council areas, parliamentary consituencies, etc). This article is a very incomplete list, gives no source (I don't know what the copyright on ONS material is, let alone from any of the other potential organisations), and gives no definition as to what areas are covered, what the definition of rich is (could be number of cars/household, average income of all households in the area, percentage of people earning over £X thousand per year, number of millionaires, average property value, number of people buying a bottle of Champagne on a regular basis, etc, etc). Delete. Thryduulf 11:15, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless definition of rich is given and sources are provided. DaveTheRed 18:34, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a regular newspaper feature to do some survey or dig out some figures ranking the towns of the United Kingdom in some sort of order, and this particular one has been done several ways. But this isn't it. Dbiv 19:09, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero credibility. Birmingham second! Wincoote 20:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too vague. No context. No source. No point. 23skidoo 22:51, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've added some actual content to the article. It's as valid a subject as the similar Richest places in the United States article. Hopefully I've rescued it from this vfd. -- Joolz 13:58, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * That looks better, and I agree the topic is encyclopædic but I'm concerned about the copyright - the liscence style you quote is for Resarch or private study purposes only, I'm not certain that wikipedia qualifies there. Also the info at the bottom of every page explicitly states that: "All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License (see Copyrights for details)". Crown copyright is incompatible with the GFDL. As such I will mark this as a potential copyvio and will make a note at the aprorpiate place for that (I can't remember where that is, but its linked from the template). Thryduulf 14:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Quoting from statistics.gov.uk: "All the material featured on this site may be downloaded to file or printer for the purposes of research and private study without requiring specific prior permission. Where National Statistics material is being published or copied to others the following statement must be shown" - I understood the last part ("being published"..) to mean that they allow the material to be published, as long as you have the statement there -- Joolz 14:46, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with that, but all text on wikipdeia is explicitly released under the GFDL (images have more leeway), and afaik that would mean someone is able to remove or edit the copyright statement on this or a mirrored version, meaning we violate the Crown copyright (never a good plan. I don't know how keen on enforcing it ONS are but the Ordnance Survey who also have crown copyright are known to be strict about it). I am not 100% certain though which I why I've played it safe, the people at copyright problems will understand the situation better than me. Thryduulf 16:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose it's best to err on the side of caution. In which case, I'm not sure if any other data source is tenable for this article. -- Joolz 16:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Research commisioned privately may have a less restrictive lisence, but its not something I can think of where to start looking for. Possibly the best would be to wait until the next such survey is released and think about it then. Thryduulf 16:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.