Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luton/Dunstable Urban Area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 20:02, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Luton/Dunstable Urban Area

Luton/Dunstable Urban Area (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

undeveloped stub. Little chance of it containing info not already in Luton, Dunstable or Houghton Regis. Please see other urban area articles for more info L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Comment I have listed this at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography as I think this could have wider implications. No voting template added at this timestamp. Regan123 13:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Regan123, because ONS regions serve as a basis for so many statistics it's useful for people to be able to see exactly what they cover. - iridescenti (talk to me!) 13:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect Luton, Dunstable and Houghton Regis into this article. No need for the three of them to have separate articles; they can all be covered together. Sadly Wikipedia doesn't have any clear guidelines on inclusion of geographical locations, but I'd say a useful rule of thumb is that, if there are no independent sources on it other than statistical and census records, it doesn't merit an article. Geographical areas are not "inherently notable" simply by virtue of being used for statistical data collection. Walton Vivat Regina! 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Definitely oppose this suggestion. The three settlements are distinct, and those articles already have lots of great info. Merging them into one article would create an incoherant and unusable article. Joe D (t) 14:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep this seems to be discussing a term for a region that encompasses other regions. It seems a valid encyclopedic article. Even if the term is not widely used by normal people (and I wouldn't expect it to be!) it is cleraly a recognised and used term in some official circles and would therefore seem valid. AlanFord 15:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Speaking genereally, if an official body uses this as a distinct area, then it should have an entry. It is a good place to describe who uses this classification, and somewhere to put the information. For example, the combined statistics do not belong in the Luton or Dunstable articles, whereas the Urban area article could describe how often the two areas are treated as one. MortimerCat 15:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Regan123, Iridescent, AlanFord, and MortimerCat.  DDStretch  (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
  • delete I agree with Walton_monarchist89 (talk · contribs) that "if there are no independent sources on it other than statistical and census records, it doesn't merit an article". Please see ONS website. Should we have an article for every item of data on that list? "The ONS says it's important, so we should have an article" - NO! If it is not in regular usage, there need be no article. Also, same file, lines 1782-1784 - I see no mention of Houghton Regis. Are all Bedfordshire articles as factually incorrect as this would seem to be? L.J.Skinnerwot|I did 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The rationale isn't that the ONS says it's important; rather, as Iridescenti said, ONS uses the term, so readers might come to Wikipedia seeking amplification. JamesMLane t c 03:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Official government region designation. --Oakshade 06:46, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
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.