Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Milton Keynes (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Milton Keynes urban area. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North Milton Keynes[edit]

[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)

I do not believe this article is notable. There are no secondary sources for it, the only source here is the primary one which defines it as a subdivision of the Milton Keynes Urban area back in 2001. It is not used in more recent definitions of the Milton Keynes Urban Area. Trying to find any sources about this online lead to information on the parliamentary constituency with a similar name, Milton Keynes North, or a vague Northern part of Milton Keynes unlike this which is a very specifically defined area which is only used once in a more than decade old data set. It might be worth redirecting to the parliamentary constituency of the same name rather than a flat out deletion. Eopsid (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, the parliamentary constituency is named Milton Keynes North, which is the standard style used for constituencies. But if there is a concern about confusion, a standard template:about hatnote will fix with trivial effort. (Which I will now do).
Second, the ONS did use this name for its enumeration: this is a matter of public record that should not be deleted lightly. I created this article many moons ago because it kept popping up in uncritical data sources like Citypopulation.de. The effect was to wildly understate the population of MK, because artificial 'districts' like this were being discounted. A future researcher is just as likely to get bogged down if they don't get some clue that there is an anomaly. They wouldn't get any clues on the ground as to the identity of this 'district': nobody identified with it, it didn't map to any physical boundaries, it was overlapped and underlapped by multiple post-codes. It is almost notable for being so arbitrary. For more analysis, see previous RfD discussion.
But in the final analysis, I have no solid basis to claim that is notable and accept that this should mean its deletion. But I suggest that it costs virtually nothing to retain it and its continued existence may be useful to someone in the future. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John, I don't believe Eopsid was putting forward confusion with the parliamentary constituency as a reason for deletion. He was putting it forward as a reason finding sources is difficult. SpinningSpark 10:00, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The relevant notability guideline here, WP:GEOLAND, says "... census tracts are usually not considered notable", which is essentially what this area is. It is (or was) an arbitrary area used only by the ONS for statistical purposes. In the absence of any RS actually discussing this subject in depth, there is no grounds for an article. The mention in Milton Keynes urban area is enough (and if it isn't, selectively merge some material into it). The arguments put forward for keeping the page; it's useful, it's harmless, it's valuable information, are all arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 01:27, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accepted. I'll need a few days to work out how best to merge it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have copied the text as it stands into talk:Milton Keynes urban area in preparation for a merge task, so deletion can go ahead whenever. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Presumably there will be no objection if I recreate the article as a redirect to the new text, when written? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Deletion discussions normally stay open for seven days (longer if consensus is not clear). You would be wise not to start merging until the discussion is closed – it might not end how you think it's going to. You can always ask for the article to be userfied if it gets deleted. If this closes as merge, that would imply that the page should be kept (for legal attribution reasons) and turned into a redirect anyway. In that case, the article will still be available in the history. You should read WP:MERGETEXT for information on how to carry attribution through to another article. SpinningSpark 17:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - This is true: I had forgotten that I don't wp:OWN the article so it is not just for me to concede the point. Nevertheless, the discussion caused me to review the way that the information about the 2001 census was scattered about in other articles in any case, and concluded that they are best gathered together in a single place. So I have rewritten Milton Keynes urban area#2001 Urban sub areas with that in mind. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Census tracts are not notable but can be covered within the main urban area article. –dlthewave ☎ 17:25, 28 March 2020 (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.