Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ipswich built-up area

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich built-up area

[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)

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. 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 Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a reason why this (and all the others) can't be redirected to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Because they aren't recognized things, or useful redirects. As explained at length in the prior AFD discussions, these are nonce computer-generated polygons used by just one statistical office that no-one else adopted. Rupples has already noted in another of these discussions that not even the creator of these polygons uses them now, and they lasted for 1 census cycle. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't agree. "XYZ built-up area" is a perfectly respectable search term, and what the searcher is looking for appears to be covered in the List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the search term is an actual entity or not; we have plenty of redirects for misspellings, typos, former names... Coming down on a formal redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here for clarity (not going to repeat myself n times but it applies to the others too) -- the list was started in 2004 by Morwen and has nothing to do with the recent articles started by DragonofBatley. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I think this could be merged into the Ipswich article Eopsid (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to merge. Ipswich already has the town's census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 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 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect will probably get the consensus, but do we really need this redirect? Yes they are cheap, but there is nothing here worth keeping and the redirect isn't doing anything useful. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as an efficient way of maintaining complete attribution while allowing easy recreation when data becomes available in rs. BusterD (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No history is deleted, and material can be restored on request. The view that redirect is preferred is disputed, and does not hold a consensus. See, for instance, WT:Deletion policy/Archive 51#Prefatory material on alternatives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:19, 15 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.