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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:10, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster/Morecambe 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 to the primary Nomis/ONS data. 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 / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think theres more sources out there which havent been added to this article yet. The 1966 book "Conurbations of Great Britain" on page 244 says "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham have now fused into a single small conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, how are you not reading that source properly? You aren't even reading what you quoted. "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham" is not "Lancaster/Morecambe". And a book from 1966 does not and cannot support a statistical polygon from 45 years in its future. That's the sort of propping up by synthesis source abuse that the article creator does. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map on this article clearly shows it includes Heysham. That book and the 2021 census are both talking about the same conurbation but defining and naming it differently. Eopsid (talk) 08:48, 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. The best that one can get even approximating this is sources talking about Lancaster, Morecambe, and Heysham, as Eopsid has mis-read above; but they're usually in fact talking about the self-containedness of the Lancaster District and its Travel-To-Work Area in the middle 20th century. In fact, the eagle eyed will spot that one of the external links is even about the Lancaster District. Well, as ever with the synthesized false areas/suburbs articles from this article creator, we already had an article for the City of Lancaster District, and it is not a "Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area". Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone cares to expand the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to include smaller ones as far down the list as this one.
• Delete – Per nom. Vedicant (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nom. Clearly not notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:31, 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.