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 delete. It seems the concerns about original research in this article cannot be overcome. -Scottywong| talk _ 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population[edit]

List of largest United Kingdom settlements by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's main source does not state that it is a source for the population of Settlements it is meant to show urban areas some of which are subdivided. Original research is used to brush over anomalies such as the lack of inclusion of London and subdivisions with the name of two settlements in the name. There is quite a long discussion about this here Eopsid (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But the whole article is just wilful misinterpretation of the source material which makes no claim to being a list of settlements. The source is a list of urban areas some of which are subdivided and the article lists the subdivisions (apart from the ones they dont like). So the article needs a new source but there is no source with a consistent definition of a settlement out there. Eopsid (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
redirect Could redirect to List of localities in England by population which contains similar entities but with a better source.--Colapeninsula (talk) 15:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We've already got List of localities in England by population and similar for Wales, Scotland etc. Do we need one for the UK as a whole as well? Polequant (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The UK, being the sovereign state, is surely the most important division to be represented? I don't see much problem with them all coexisting, but if they shouldn't it's probably the sub-national ones that should be deleted, not this one. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:45, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are three different sources here one for england and wales, one for Scotland and one for Northern Ireland. A list combining all this could come under Wikipedia:Synthesis. Eopsid (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good point - they are measured differently in Scotland to England and Wales at least. While this is true of urban areas too the ONS does publish documents combining them for Urban areas, so that presumably doesn't count as synthesis, while to my knowledge they don't for localities. On that basis the separate articles for England, Scotland etc should take precedence as you say, so I've changed my vote for this article to delete. JimmyGuano (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's exactly the danger with this article - it looks temptingly simple and appealing, but it does this by being grossly misleading. If you want to compare London and Manchester then what measure of Manchester you should use is pretty much open to debate - some people might argue for the strictly defined city, some for the urban area, some for something in between. Pretty much nobody would argue for "the urban area subdivided by pre-1974 county-borough borders" though - which is the measure that this article is implying is definitive. This is the most bizarre, counter-intuitive and overbearingly technical measure of the lot, which is why it is covered up with layers of original research to patch it up. The article as it is is completely unsupportable. Although I've voted keep and rename above, deleting it would definitely be better than leaving it as it is. JimmyGuano (talk) 06:53, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is another article that lists UK urban areas without overbearing technical jargon and bizarre anomalies like not counting London . Eopsid (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should have perhaps been clearer... what I like about the article is that it gives me a (to my knowledge reasonably accurate) middle path between the urban areas list (wherein London includes Watford and Birmingham and Wolverhampton are a single place) and the localities list (wherein London is the City and there's zero integration between the UK countries). I understand that those are supported by official sources while this article isn't and that the boundaries used in it are totally arbitrary, But I think ditching something presented this simply without replicating it's positive aspects elsewhere would be a loss for the project. --MichiganCharms (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there is no middle path without resorting to POV. We either use the only reliable source, the ONS classifications, or we make up something that fits some individuals fancy - or POV as its called in Wikipedia. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think that adding a note with the population of Greater London on the localities in England list really constitutes "POV", nor do I think an inclusive UK list is that much of a big deal as long as the differences are noted. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes it is because the items in the list are not necessarily settlements. The ONS does not define them as settlements so neither should we. And I don't care if we have a note that explains it, as the title and the data is what people will pay attention to. What the ONS call a 'locality' or 'sub-urban area' may or may not be a settlement but we do not have sources which tell us what each item is, and the ONS certainly do not define them as settlements. It is highly misleading to characterise these things as settlements when they may bear little relation to either administrative divisions or common perception of what a place is. If you want to find out the population of a place then go to the article on that place, where hopefully the data will be explained in a sensitive way that a list cannot manage. If you want to know a 'ranking' of a place look at the other population lists and draw your own conclusions. That this is an 'easy' or 'useful' article is not a reason to gloss over POV and OR. Polequant (talk) 12:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 14:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we take it as read that whatever happens to this article should happen to Template:25 largest settlements in the UK by urban core population too? JimmyGuano (talk) 14:59, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[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.
More