Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnley built-up area

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect‎ to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:38, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley built-up area

[edit]

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

Burnley built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable census area. Sourcing mostly to Nomis/ONS, with a few additional. The book source appears not to use the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to repeat what I said at length about original research machine-generated statistical areas and false conurbations at the two prior AFD discussions, but what I said there holds here as well.

    Indeed, reading the 1966 source by Freeman, which couldn't possibly support an ONS invention from 2011, reveals that indeed it doesn't support a "built up area" at all, or even a conurbation. It talks, in fact, of the "weaving area" towns of Lancashire, also called the "cotton mill towns", and more formally the Lancashire cotton industry, which a redirect to a couple of sentences really does not do justice to, given the existence of entire books just on that subject (e.g. Mary B. Rose's History since 1700 and stuff by Sydney John Chapman) and articles like JSTOR 2589825, JSTOR 621119, and JSTOR 1810346.

    This article has no bearing on improving Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" or "cotton mill" towns into a break-out sub-article, however. This subject has not escaped the confines of its creator in what is now 12 years. Delete.

    Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • How are they false conurbations? I weakly support deletion but this is definitely a conurbation by definition of the word. Its just not notable enough for an article. The 1966 source (conurbations of Great Britain) has a whole section on the Burnley conurbation on page 240. Amongst other things it says: "Along the road and canal through Brierfield to Nelson and Barrowford there is continuous town". I'm unsure what you mean about the Weaving area? That book clearly says that the weaving area includes four conurbations: Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Rossendale and then goes into detail on all four. Eopsid (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • How can you be mis-reading the book this badly? Freeman has the words "The 'weaving area' Towns" in italics right there in front of you, and then goes on to list towns. Burnley is called a "town" in the very first sentence below that heading, and several times further on on that very same page; a town "in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire". We have an article on the town of Burnley: Burnley. If you had looked in the index, you'd have found Burnley also on page 222, where it is called a "cotton town".

        This is false sourcing by an article creator that often just string-matches highly inappropriate sources, in this case a source that pre-dates the ONS creating these statistical polygons with a computer by 45 years. (That's not the worst of it. Another article from this creator had a 19th century report of a cricket match being used to support a 21st century false suburb, when — just as here — we already had an existing article on the cricket club by almost but not quite the same title. And the "suburb" is actually a park, the remnants of a 19th century manor house and grounds, which encompasses the cricket club.) The stuff about the canal isn't about a group of settlements in the source, as this article has it; it is specifically about "the valley to the north of Burnley". We already have an article on the River Calder, whose valley it is, too; and that article already even has mention of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal that Freeman mentions crosses the valley.

        If you'd then tried to find out what Freeman meant by "weaving area towns", you would have almost immediately turned up sources such as Manchester and its Region (roughly contemporary with the Freeman source, at 1962 and published by MUP) which has the "Weaving area" followed by the "Spinning area", both groups of towns (it saying the word "towns" 5 times in one paragraph) that include for the weaving area "The three larger towns of Blackburn, Accrington, and Burnley". The larger context of what it is discussing for these "area"s is the textiles industry, i.e. the Lancashire cotton industry. It's what Rex Pope is talking about in xyr 2000 book Unemployment and the Lancashire Weaving Area: 1920-1938.

        There are loads of books and articles on the economic/industrial history and geography of the Lancashire cotton industry, many explaining what the towns in Lancashire's "weaving area" are, and it is not good to prefer to merge falsely sourced bad content trying to prop up a statistical polygon than actually address a proper topic, especially when a mis-used source explaining a group of "fifteen town units in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire" is staring us all in the face.

        Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        • Sorry but I dont think I'm misreading it. Its a book called conurbations of Great Britain and has a section on a conurbation it calls Burnley. It also calls Burnley a town but that doesnt mean there isnt also a conurbation centred on Burnley. The source even gives seperate population figures for the town of Burnley (80,600) and the group of towns (i.e. the conurbation) centred on it (156,000). Eopsid (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is the misunderstanding here that we are using different definitions for the term conurbation? Eopsid (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. You are simply substituting the book title for the book content. Always read beyond the title. Freeman starts on p. 222 by discussing the town of Burnley, an industrial area, and after going through several other types of towns, gets back to the town of Burnley on p.240 as one of the "'weaving area' Towns" that is a part of the Lancashire cotton industry. We have an article on the town of Burnley. It is Burnley. That population figure is for a "group of towns" that are "in the Calder valley". We have an article on the River Calder whose valley it is, too, that even has a "Settlements" section. Neither the Calder valley nor what Freeman discusses is "centred on Burnley". Not only is that clearly wrong from looking at a map, but Freeman even says that this group of towns is "along the road and canal", i.e. that it is the road and canal that are the centres, for obvious reasons given the industry, not the town. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are we reading the same book? It first discusses Burnley on page 222 yes as an example of an older industrial area. But its discussing these areas under a chapter it calls "The smaller conurbations and towns" and states that older industrial areas are one of the "types" of these conurbations. It discusses Burnley again under a section it calls Minor Conurbations of the North. Where it goes into detail on which towns form part of the conurbation describing the area as having "continuous town" i.e. a conurbation between parts of it. Eopsid (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I think this should be merged with the Burnley article Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is badly sourced inaccurate content, not even correctly representing what the Freeman source says, for starters, that should not be re-used. As explained above, we already have the town, the valley, the canal and others in their proper articles; and this content isn't accurate or on point for the Lancashire cotton industry, because it's just throwing misrepresented factoids together as synthesis for a statistical polygon. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article was created by someone who did not understand the subject. Now it will be deleted by people who do not understand the subject. Classic Wikipedia! @Uncle G: Adding more bullshit to try to coverup the limitations of your understanding is hardly helpful. "Built-up area", "urban area", "Metropolitan area and "conurbation" all practically mean the same thing. The idea that these where invented for the 2011 census is ludicrous.TiB chat 18:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • TiB - the personal attacks on other editors, here and in the edit summary, get us nowhere. What would assist is if you could provide some R/S that use the term. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which term? Which is the point I made. Not that it matters. This is already a done deal. There is no point saving this article and deleting all the others. Also, I attacked the content not the person who wrote it.TiB chat 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • “Someone who did not understand the subject” / “people who do not understand the subject” / “the limitations of your understanding” / “bullshit” / “wtf”. But still no R/S to suggest. Ah well. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • I stand by every statement. I am in a bad mood today and on another I might chosen to be less robust, but if people are offended by the truth that is their problem. As I already said, there is no point wasting more time with extra research. I already found a fantastic source for all these articles (Freeman) and shared it at WT:UKGEO four years ago. Not only did nobody do anything about it then, it is now being severely misrepresented here. I don't have the time to fix all these articles and I doubt almost anyone will care if they go. I'm just howling at the moon.TiB chat 22:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is rather absurd to point to 3 different encyclopaedia articles to make the argument that they mean the same thing. The reality is that you didn't find a fantastic source for a concept that came along 45 years later than the source did. You found an impossible one. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case Trappedinburnley wants to bring new RS into the discussion. Sorry for your frustration, AFDs can have that effect, but, please, civility even in the midst of heated disagreements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would support keeping if more sources can be found. Searching google books and news for things like Burnley / Nelson conurbation does come up with stuff. But it’s mostly just passing mentions when discussing other things. I was hoping to find some discussion in local papers or their websites about potential merging of Burnley and Pendle districts, thinking that would have some discussion on the conurbation. I'm sure I've read something like that before, but I couldnt find it. Eopsid (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This, based on the 2021 census, no longer even seems to define BBuA as it was defined in 2011, and as it is described in our article (see map on p3). If we were to merge to Burnley, we could perhaps describe it as a short-lived census area? KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • They've renamed and redefined the concept in each census, 2001 it was urban area, 2011 was built-up area and then now built-up conglomerations (which are made up of built up areas). And they havent even released the built-up conglomeration data yet. See ONS talking about it The renaming makes finding sources harder. Eopsid (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • And as shown below, there was a nonce "M.A." made up in 1951 by an urban research unit at the University of California, Berkeley. (It's still there, although the name has changed slightly.) The amusing thing is that they even went to some effort to explain that this wasn't the same as any other concept or nomenclature, including the U.S. federal "Standard Metropolitan Area". Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've spent about three hours searching for some independent RS that would improve the notability situation, and while I've learnt stuff, I've found also rather limited success. Added to the evolving terminology, the older terms have become vague. I've found references to the town of Burnley as a conurbation and also much discussion of the urban areas within it. Even tracking down the relevant census data for the 1961 - 1991 period has thus far proved impossible. One potentially useful source I found is METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (1962) by Leo F. Schnore. I also found English Conurbations in the 1951 Census by E W Gilbert. It doesn't mention Burnley but it neatly explains the early history of the study on a national level. If this article does not survive, perhaps along with Freeman, it could be used to expand urban area and/or List of urban areas in the United Kingdom?TiB chat 19:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • When you read Schnore all of the way through, you find that there's no Burnley conurbation in it. It's a County Borough ("Burnley CB") in a different nonce never-took-off "BURNLEY-NELSON" from another census analysis, which had "Metropolitan Area" as its nonce term. I'm apparently the only one reading these sources. Because surely anyone who read Schnore would also spot Schnore bringing in that Leeds and Liverpool Canal again, just like Freeman. Schnore even goes to pains to point out that the nonce "M.A." is not a conurbation. So much for the "they mean the same thing" argument. And Schnore even lists the conurbations, six of them, which doesn't include Burnley.

        What a lot of time expended on synthesizing together a whole succession of nonce census inventions that never take hold and never last beyond the next census! There's a whole lot of geography that is not nonce census statistical polygons that these sources are practically waving in the faces of the nonce census polygon hunters. Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" and "spinning" areas, Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Burnley, River Calder.

        Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        • Thankyou for reading all of Schnore, but did you read Gilbert? I used the words "neatly explains" for a reason. Although it is not fundamentally relevant to this article I will give a brief synopsis of the subject. As the Industrial Revolution massively accelerated the growth of urbanisation, people realised that this was the engine of similarly accelerated economic growth. Governments and academics thought that it was an important field of research. Census data would obviously be important, but it was tabulated according to local government districts and in many places once neighbouring villages had grown into conglomerations that although effectively a "continuous town" were still being administered by sperate government districts. So on both sides of the Atlantic the researchers got out the maps and processed the data using marginally differing mythology. The 1951 UK census was the first to include data on the very largest conurbations. After Freeman's work, the 1961 census was expanded to add many more (including Burnley-Nelson). This continued until (I believe) 1991. By then (along with a total local government reorganisation in 1974), a new computerised system lead to alterations in the methodology and a new name adopted. The rest has been explained by Eopsid [1] Although the differing methodologies mean that the data is not perfectly comparable, they are IMO sufficiently similar to justify inclusion in the same article, given sufficient explanation. I apologise if I have misunderstood your level of experience with this subject, but if not, I hope this sheds new light on the sources.
I did not create this article and when I became aware of it I was immediately concerned about the title and the lack of appropriate sources. So I spent just enough time on it to IMO cross the notability threshold and alert other interested users to the modifications I felt could rescue the other articles. And I satisfied myself that "built-up area" was (although least used) in fact, the most current. I note that other (better) urban area articles have thus far survived the cull (perhaps you guys are working in reverse quality order?), maybe the third most populous urban area in Lancashire doesn't make the cut, but at least (on that day) I tried to fix it rather than denigrating the efforts of others.TiB chat 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this discussion is absorbing a deal of valuable editor time. And it looks to me that the Keep and Delete positions are so firmly held that a compromise of Merge/Redirect is unlikely to find favour. In those circumstances, would it be simpler if I withdrew the nomination, and we maintained the status quo ante bellum? KJP1 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2025 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Burnley_built-up_area&oldid=1278666469"