Only two angels are named in the Hebrew Bible: Michael and Gabriel, both in Daniel. Raphael is named in Tobit, which is canonical for Catholics and Orthodox and not for Jews or Protestants. Uriel is named in none of them.
Uriel comes from the apocryphal and pseudepigraphic literature. He appears in 1 Enoch, where he is among the angels set over the luminaries and the one who warns Noah; in 2 Esdras, where he is the angel sent to answer Ezra's questions about theodicy; and in the Apocalypse of Moses and related texts. He is prominent in the Hekhalot writings and in later Jewish magical material. This is a substantial pedigree, and it is not a canonical one.
That distinction had a consequence. A council held at Rome in 745 under Pope Zachary, dealing with the case of a preacher named Aldebert who was invoking angels by name, condemned the veneration of angels other than the three scripturally named ones, and lists of the proscribed names circulated afterwards including Uriel among them. The details of the proceeding are debated by historians and the surviving record is not as clean as later retellings make it, but the direction is clear enough: the Western church tried to hold angelic invocation to a very short list, and Uriel was outside it.
He nonetheless remained continuously in use, in Jewish mystical practice, in Eastern Christian devotion where he is venerated more freely, and above all in the Western magical tradition, which had no reason to observe an eighth-century Roman restriction. His placement in the north with the element of Earth, given here, is a Golden Dawn arrangement and is not attested in any of the ancient sources. In 1 Enoch his associations are with the heavenly lights and with fire rather than with earth.
The entry is therefore a good example of a general caution about this subject. The elemental and directional attributions carried by these figures in modern ceremonial practice are almost entirely nineteenth-century constructions laid over names of much greater antiquity, and the antiquity of the name is regularly mistaken for the antiquity of the attribution.