Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis

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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis

This article must violate about half a dozen guidelines (NPOV, OR: being the main 'violations') some examples are, respectively, "Both Manchester and Liverpool have a 'china town', however Liverpool's is Europe's oldest", "Places of natural beauty, but also homes of the rich and famous". etc. The only references supplied are those to one other page that is a Wikipedia article. Overall the article seems somewhat like someone's interpretation of several articles on-wiki, written into one large piece that makes no sense and is in no shape to be referenced or accurately sourced since the "megalopolis" (which is the whole point of this page) doesn't actually exist. Rudget (logs) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources please? I've lived in the area all my life and have never before heard of the "Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis", and a google search for that term yields only one hit, suggesting that this is indeed an invented idea. Also, where is the evidence to support the notion that people referring to the "North West" mean only the urban areas of Liverpool and Manchester? PC78 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As User:PC78, I have never heard of the area being reffered to as a megalopolis, nor for that matter Manchester and Liverpool being reffered to as the whole of the NW. I think it might also be disputable that Manchester and Liverpool are growing, the evidence with regards to population would suggest the reverse. Most material of that doesnt break numerous guidelines such as original research etc appears to be little more than duplication of various other articles relating to the area. Pit-yacker (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose that half-a-dozen may have been a little too much, but the point stands: I initially thought that the article was infact little-by-little copies of some existing material, however, I was unable to find this anywhere in the relevant articles (example, text on Manchester in the Manchester article) leading me to believe that this is leaning more towards a personal interpretation and thus original research, since the new material is different to the older version, its probably unreferencable. Proven in the case in point. Rudget (logs) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - unsourced, OR, SYNTH. I also have lived in the area and never heard the term, or even the idea discussed. JohnCD (talk) 19:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A megalopolis is similar to a conurbation, except that it involves the meeting of two or more metropolitan areas. It isn't necessarily related to issues of population size, a very large city is often referred to by the term megacity.

The urban part of the North West is a megalopolis according to both definition and the reality of the area; the article is a work in progress intended to help understanding of the metropolitan nature of the region, versus self-contained city regions such as the West Midlands, Glasgow, etc, which currently operate in metropolitan isolation. "Megapolitan" is rarely an official title in the same way as "metropolitan", but is instead a physical event with associated socio-economic outcomes (ie. increased labour pool, larger market, increased cross-region mobility, etc).

The Liverpool Manchester megalopolis has been referred to by others previously; other terms that have been used are North-West city region, North-West megalopolis, North-West conurbation. Liverpool-Manchester megalopolis is the most appropriate for this article, as it accurately describes the phenomena in an understandable format. It has been difficult to choose a title for this article, but the phenomena is worthy of note.

Incidentally, I was also considering authoring articles on other such urban areas, such as the West Midlands, which also has a unique and interesting background and history.

Regarding points of view, there are none in the article - again, it is a work in progress and references will be added as time goes by (I don't work on Wikipedia full time). Liverpool does have Europe's oldest Chinatown; little known fact perhaps, but there you have it - part of Liverpool's history (which has its own entry on Wikipedia). Alderley Edge etc, is a nationally known beauty spot very popular with hill walkers and the like, it is also home to the rich and famous and is one of the UK's most expensive places to live (so you'd have to be rich, at least).

I have been in discussion also with people at Wikipedia_talk:GM who raised points regarding verifiability but are actually interested in seeing the article complete in order to add a reference to Wikipedia for something that is consequential.

I would like to say that the article is not meant to be offensive in any way or do anything other than document an event and consequence of urban growth.--Genolian3 (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's just an original research based article that advances the creating editors view that the north-west urban-sprawl area is a megalopolis. The subject of the article (i.e. Liverpool-Manchester megaloposis) is not a notable entity as it is not verified by second or third party reliable sources. It's an interesting idea but it is not suitable for inclusion in a encyclopedia. If references are supplied (I can't find any and I live in said megalopolis) then I may change to keep. Cheers, Nk.sheridan Talk 22:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current article is OR, and google and google news tell me there are reliable sources to turn it into anything but. Vickser (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's on the way to being an interesting essay, but it's original research and thus not suitable for an encyclopaedia article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can't just make stuff up, then stick it on here. This is the most blatant form of Original Research I have ever seen. Get some credible sources to even confirm the theory of such a "megalopolis", and include verified info. This could be classed as misinformation. -Toon⁰⁵ 19:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Interesting article - had it been referenced mind. --Jza84 | Talk 22:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ^┌_Joshii^┐_└^chat_┘ 23:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR unless other sources can be found. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia shall not be used to originally publish your stuff. -Nard 01:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Liverpool and Manchester are separate cities each with theri own article. Even if tnhey are nearly connected by urban sprawl, my impression was that there was considerable country between them. 30 years ago, I remember some one telling me of the Liverpool-Hull megacity, but this is merely a geographers' construct with little reality. However some one should ensure that there is no useful information in this article that should not be transferred to the articles on the two SEPARATE cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2008 (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.