Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heavy Woollen District

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete or merge. Based on the substantial level of participation in the discussion, and the reasonably well-argued majority position for keeping at this time, it does not seem likely that relisting the discussion will yield any different result. There is no dispute that this is a geographic designation (even if unofficial) which is found in some reliable sources, and there is a reasonable argument that identified potential merge targets would generally only be appropriate for part of the subject, but not the entirety of it. This close is without prejudice to future proposals to merge to an appropriate target if one is identified, or to adjust the scope of the article to a more encompassing overall topic. BD2412 T 19:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Woollen District

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating on behalf of User:RailwayJG, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography#Deletion of the Heavy Woollen District for JG's reasons. My own Google searching appears to only return unreliable sources and promotional ones or otherwise don't contain significant coverage. Books does return a bit of info that appears independent though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:48, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears to be a name with some history, appearing in Commercial Relations of the United States with Foreign Countries from 1868, specific parliamentary discussion including discussion of unionisation from 1905, and significantly referenced in government transportation studies from the 1970s. The article's sourcing could be improved, but this definitely passes WP:GNG as a "non-official" geography. Much of the sourcing I found was from the late 19th century, so the place name may be more historical than it has been (logical due to its industrial nature) but this is not a reason for deletion. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Geography Talk Page. This is an unofficial area, but it is of some historical significance and retains some significance to this day if only informal use by organisations (football leagues, clubs, CAMRA, historical societies etc). An alternative would be to merge content to all the sub-articles referenced in the Category, but some standardised text would be required and a stub article may be better in any case. Koncorde (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge the article into Kirklees Leeds and Wakefield borough pages. It doesn't warrant imo an article of its own with no official stance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merging would suggest that this page could be redirected to one or all 3. I initially considered that with Kirklees (as most descriptions suggest thr district is "north Kirklees" with Kirklees then having its own sub-section but it would achieve much the same as this article in any case, and it isn't historically associated with Kirklees as an entity. It has similar significance to the region as Staffordshire Potteries, Wigan Pier or the Royal Mile to their own as both a contextual piece of history and an ongoing colloquial descriptor used by the local populace and organisations. There is also a fair amount of historic coverage, multiple books making more than just passing comment about either the district itself, or the Trams or Transport company. Koncorde (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - (And just to be clear: I am not suggesting it has the same popular usage or even historical or cultural significance as those: just that it shares the same underlying idea even if it has fallen out of use / significance / relevance in recent years other than by local organisations). Koncorde (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a long-established, still-used, informal name for an area which does not correspond to local authority boundaries past or present. If there are multiple definitions or descriptions, so much the better for: a Wikipedia article can discuss and source them, to help the reader who wants to know why the cricket league (etc) has this curious name. PamD 06:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked, and there appears to be ample historical documentation of this subject to support an article. There's stuff from analysis of wages through the reason for rising and falling employment rates between the world wars to smallpox vaccination rates out there to be used, none of which has been yet and all specific to this named district. Uncle G (talk) 07:44, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as stand-alone. As someone who's only just visited the Yorkshire Dales 80 miles away for the first time (only to buy a car from Otley in the short-daylight of November lockdown, otherwise I would have had a better look around) this has been instructional for me. Reminds of my late mother sending me as a toddler to the rag and bone cart with a bundle almost as big as me for a pittance (thrupence - "...is that all he's given you - and it was all wool...") and the post-war shake-up mattresses, pre spring interior. Now I can better-appreciate the industry/technology of the time. Per PamD, that's what the WP experience enables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocknrollmancer (talk • contribs) 2021-03-29T12:52:41 (UTC)
Can't say I agree with reasons it should be kept as there is no official ons or anything government wise to back up the district or area existence. The name is not what I am aware of as I live in Batley. I also think this name is more a coined name used and is better merged into the West Yorkshire Article as a separate tab. The reasons above are sensible but it seems more trivial then solid to be a stand alone article just because some corporations used it and it had a name in 1794 or so. Doesn't to me warrant a separate article. It just seems too bantering and joking to be taken seriously. And it has no defining coverage just a map with a bunch of towns. Its not really a district or an area. It is just a nickname. It should be merged with West Yorkshire as it has no official website or a ward/parish to back up its stance as a district or area. It need some contemporary sources not past names. I could write now an article called the Fenland District and put Louth Wisbech and Ely in them as they are the Fenlands. But no reliable sources back it and another example is the so called Manchester and Liverpool Megapolis. Just because they are near one and other doesn't warrant a Merseyside and Greater Manchester County Area. Heavy Woollen District is just a local nickname and is to me not of notable importance and significance. And that's coming from someone who lives in this supposed made-up district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 15:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample reliable evidence of the use of the term, including use by institutions no longer connected to the wool trade. The district does not map closely to any local authority area, as the article says, but that is a good reason for an article separate from articles on local government districts and not merging into them.--Mhockey (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think institutions and use of names were reliable sources I thought it was books articles and historical facts not because it appears in the name of an establishment?
And unofficial means it is not actually there. It is just a name coined so how can a non official name be given its own article? I could just call all of Hyndburn borough Accrington Stanley and it be the name of a football team but it be reverted as it is not an official name. So how does an article with no official recognition other then in a coined term get a strong standing article of its own? Seems misinforming and very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 16:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:GEOLAND states: Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. This doesn't have legal recognition, but it's clearly been discussed by a number of reliable sources and passes WP:GNG, meaning we can have an article on it. I do agree the sourcing could be improved a bit. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - As SportingFlyer, there are dozens of historical books dating back to the 1800's, and certainly as recently as the 1970's it was being used for Transport studies etc and is still referenced in timetables.[1][2][3][4][5]. It may not be of mega popular use these days, but that doesn't negate notability. Koncorde (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I see lots of passing mentions but no in-depth coverage. Perhaps you could give a WP:THREE for a GNG pass?----Pontificalibus 08:24, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: There's so many potential sources in parliamentary proceedings, books, and historical newspapers. [6]. Most of the mentions in newspapers die out by 1930, but there are thousands of hits which clearly define the region. I'm not going to be able to find a feature article on the name for you, though. SportingFlyer T·C 10:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again probably just me and some others but I think a tab of it in the West Yorkshire article would be more beneficial as West Yorkshire is more well known and given all of it falls under the county. I make more sense to have it in the West Yorkshire Article and it linked to the places mentioned in the Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield Articles. As well as each town or village it covers. I still fail to see the reason a stand alone article is needed for it. At least my urban area or built-up area articles are officially recognised by ONS and statistics. But this should not be reffered to as a district as it is not one. Maybe the lead should say "The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former wollen cloth made in parts of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England". Then mention the rest but I challege the use of the term District as a district is usually associated with suburbs, cities and councils. Not a non-existing or unrecognized area.RailwayJG (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I would be happy to have this discussion closed if the following changes were to be agreed on. Change District to Area and keep the lead as followed by me:
"The Heavy Woollen Area is the name of a former woolen cloth area which was made in parts of the modern day boroughs of Kirklees, Leeds and Wakefield in West Yorkshire, England. Located around the towns of Dewsbury, Batley, Heckmondwike and Ossett."
And then If agreed. Including the change of name from district to area. I will happily ask for closure on the nomination. But if both are refused, I will continue to challenge it.RailwayJG (talk) 23:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page to Heavy Woollen Area article and made the lead changes. As it is agreed to keep. I think it the discussion can be closed. Happy with consensus and my neutral moving of the page. RailwayJG (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The reliable sources call it district. It should be referred to as such. We just need to make clear in the lede that it is not an official district like a Rural or Urban. Please stop taking unilateral actions after you raised the PROD until discussions are completed and a reviewer officially closes. Koncorde (talk) 09:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- What you are doing is factually wrong, however. All of the documentation that people are pointing to calls it the Heavy Woollen District.
  You are going about this completely the wrong way. There's a documented thing that is addressed by numerous people over a period that is well over a century that is named a Heavy Woollen District. If there's enough reliable documentation for Wikipedia editors to write an article explaining to people, including you, who live in the area and have never heard of it, the actual history of your area and what the Heavy Woollen District was, then that's the right course of action.
  It's not about what you have heard about. It's not about your personal opinion of what something should be called in your view, long after the fact. This is a documented historical thing, and that's what it was called. We want people like you, who don't know what this is, to be able to look it up in an encyclopaedia, should they encounter mention of it somewhere. If you want to write about this subject, then please do your research, and go and find things to read about it before attempting to write and arguing about what its name is.
  Uncle G (talk) 09:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine keep it, I don't agree with it having an article but that my own opinion which Wikipedia isn't based on. But I think if thats the case. Fine I am not gonna argue it. I try to be constructive and don't see how an unofficial geograph as on a case-by-case basis doesn't warrant a place coined by a name and not by unofficial recognition by Kirklees, Leeds or Wakefield Councils... can have its own article with nothing government related but a local nickname. Could make a page for Manchester and Liverpool Being a megapolis but nothing supports it. It is done by assumptions and urban areas. RailwayJG (talk) 13:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There already is a Liverpool–Manchester Megalopolis article, it used to be Liverpool–Manchester rivalry but someone moved it in 2019 and changed what the whole article was about. Although some of that was my fault, cos I added a brief section about it to the article 10 years ago, when I was a newbie editor. Eopsid (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think some of the arguments above are rather missing the point. The area cannot have a website because it isn't an administrative entity, and never has been, but it is a long-established and widely recognised term for the area. It may be necessary to look for publications that pre-date the web for sources, as I think the term has perhaps fallen out of use a little since the 1980s. Koncorde's suggestion of the Staffordshire Potteries as a comparison is good, as it is another area historically united by a common industry. The South Wales Valleys and the Black Country would be further examples. --188.28.141.170 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to West Yorkshire as a non-notable informal area without legal recognition per WP:GEOLAND. None of the keep votes above have provided sources to support a standalone article - the current sources are certainly insufficient, containing no in-depth coverage.----Pontificalibus 08:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The region is referred to in a number of books, Hansard etc both as discussion of organisations of the area, for the area, and about the area. This is far from exhaustive but demonstrates that it had ubiquitous usage for the area up to the 1970's at the least.[7] Further sources provided here, at Geography, and on the subject talk page all refer specifically not just to the usage of the phrase, but also recurringly the description of the industry, its people, its organisations, business groups, travel etc as well as regional planning by administrative units that are well beyond trivial coverage (although some are trivial) and continued reference by tourism boards etc in historical summaries - and that is without going offline for additional sourcing (for which a reference list from the West Yorkshire Archive association is provided on the talk page). Koncorde (talk) 09:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped a few links into Ext heading commented out - haven't got the time presently, but the Diocese of Leeds looks interesting.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 11:59, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree merge into West Yorkshire. One could make a tab about this district in the Kirklees Wakefield and Leeds Pages. And cover it in detail. Don't see why it needs a separate article. One other thing that could be done is to merge it into a new article which covers the former Yorkshire industrial history and cover all the areas with a district.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Railway JG (talk • contribs) 15:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do anything with Heavy Woollen District Trades Council: 1891-1904 minutes but County Archives will have got the title right. Another Primary - is anybody bovvered? Not me.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Many keep arguments rely on widespread usage of the term in sources, but this isn't enough. For example consider "Central Southern England" - this is used in numerous contexts to refer to an informal area, but there's no consensus on what this area is, and no sources discuss this area in detail outside of their own specific contexts, so we don't have an article on it. Just because a trade union, or a bus company talk extensively about their "Heavy Woollen District", this doesn't make the term notable outside of those contexts. So we could have an article on the Heavy Woollen District branch of the General Union of Textile Workers, or the Heavy Woollen District Transport Association or whatever, but unless there are sources discussing and defining the area in detail outside of specific uses, we can't have an article on it (Look at the Further Reading on Staffordshire Potteries for the type of coverage needed). Lots of sources have been waved around, but can anyone name several specific ones that are sufficient to satisfy GNG? If not, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests we may be much better off talking about this area in the context of another article, such as West Yorkshire.----Pontificalibus 06:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you Pontificalibus. There is names for north and south Midlands which were used for Milton Keynes for example but nothing sufficient enough to warrant a separate article. Either a merge into the West Yorkshire Article would be better or a new article as you suggested with names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 11:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PAGEDECIDE states "When creating new content about a notable topic..." (emphasis added); this was created in 2005 and that content still holds good. This is typical of the contrived, artificial arguments that WP has been developed to allow; invoking sigcov, as I expected and wrote into Talk 29 March simply does not heavily apply to non-topical - historic - articles.

No-one wrote or writes copiously, explicitly, with the secondary-motive of anticipating third-party usage at some point - 1, 10, 40 or 100 years later.

7:2 !votes, not counting proxy-nom Crouch, Swale as an indeterminate, presumably recused and again an indeterminate, Eopsid (non-!vote) {not pinged to obviate shouts of canvassing]. There is ample evidence that this was significant around Batley, as just one place, contrary to the experiences of the de facto nom; and these uses are ongoing. One (ownership unclear) source has comprehensive coverage but with a lot off-topic, so add {{Unreliable source}}? Obviously (again as I wrote at Talk), there's always going potential for some degree of CIRCULAR; I first encountered blatant local plagiarism and copyvio from national in 1980; 'they' (now Bauer) were entirely unconcerned, confirming it was expected in the print trade and something they learn as apprentices, but agreed it was OTT.

How many more changes of tack will there be? So, to summarise:
it's not a District;
no defined boundaries
there's no website/legal status
the de facto nom has never heard of it despite historic sources to the contrary
it fails GNG
The sources are insufficiently-deep and/or recent/regularly-ongoing
one source is unreliable/localised
it fails geoland
Anything else to invoke?

Moving/renaming would be WP denying history. I didn't just dream-up the Encyclopædia Britannica refs; almost though, after a sleep I awoke remembering another similar article, also termed as a 'district' from 2005, changed to "area" in 2017 (the deletionists don't know about it ).--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 12:45, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you brough up the North Midlands and South Midlands RailwayJG but articles do exist for them. I'm a keep vote, because the article has lots of sources mentioning the district, I think a lot of which have been added since this deletion discussion started. but I will admit the article is quite messy at the moment. Eopsid (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pontificalibus: Your point isn't really true - the district's clearly defined as being centred on Dewsbury and including Batley, and is discussed as a district by the Leeds newspapers in the 1890s, and is discussed as a whole in articles like this or this. The area's also been defined by the UK government. It's not a vague region, it is discussed and defined by sources. SportingFlyer T·C 13:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThanQ, User:Eopsid, that is 8:2 !votes then. The article may have looked a touch messy, as I added a new ref under a separate Notes heading, which auto-generated a TOC; I then placed the historic union text behind the existing first part to verify the actual name, all as a separate lede, adding another placeholder heading for the main body. It looked 'wrong' as there's really not enough for headings, so I deleted the Notes heading, placing the ref inline, which removed the TOC, etc. I knew it would likely be messed with so wasn't a priority.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 14:58, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.