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]

Norwich 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 entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional site that doesn't work. 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 / Ipswich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 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]
• Merge - I suggest we merge with the Norwich article. Eopsid (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge. Norwich already has 220 years' worth of census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 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. I should add that there are histories of Norwich discussing where its built-up area is, and how it shrank in the 14th century and re-grew in the 17th, but that's not this computer-generated statistical polygon from 2011, or something that in the sources is a concept distinct from Norwich. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 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) 09:49, 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 12:23, 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 alternative to deletion. We prefer redirects to deletion when there's a distant possibility that attribution may be useful. That's why they're regarded as cheap alternatives to deletion, because 1) anybody can do it and 2) everybody still has ready access to the complete page history. BusterD (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The view that redirect is preferred is disputed. See, for instance, WT:Deletion policy/Archive 51#Prefatory material on alternatives. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:15, 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.