Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helensburgh and Lomond

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP: merge and redirect. Paul August &#9742; 23:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Helensburgh and Lomond
This is an artificial area. PatGallacher 20:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I will expand on my reasons for calling for deletion. I am not disputing that there is such an area, and its boundaries are clearly defined. However it is not an area in its own right, it is defined as that part of the historic county of Dunbartonshire which went into Argyll and Bute at the local govt. reorganisation of the 1990s. Granted, including the Helensburgh area was controversial. "Helensburgh and Lomond" is, as far as I am aware, not a term which is significantly used either officially or colloquially, I had never heard of it before I came across it on Wikipedia a few minutes ago. It does not even include the majority of the shore of Loch Lomond. I recognise that Helensburgh and Loch Lomond do merit inclusion. Anything useful in this article should be moved to Argyll and Bute, I think a lot of it will be there already. PatGallacher 20:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm going with Pat Gallacher on this. It should be merged with better known areas. I am surprised it is not called "and Loch Lomond", "and Lomondside" etc...--MacRusgail 20:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to go with a merge to Argyle and Bute. I'd certainly never heard of this division of the area. However, a quick google gives 52,000 hits and indicates that the designation is being extensively used by the local authority and other government agencies as a regional subdivision. Thus, if it were neccessary to split an article on Argle and Bute, this doesn't seem like an unreasonable way to go. PS since nomination calls for move/merge, it could have been done without nominating for deletion. --Doc (?) 21:23, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep all areas with communities of interest - a Google search shows 53,000 hits . It seems to be a council ward and is worthy of retention as a real place with real community of interest. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On balance I'd have to say Merge and redirect. Unless some large contribution comes along about it as a council ward, or on the controversy about its "defection" to A&B, in which case it can be split back out happily enough.  Alai 16:44, 23 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.