Lancaster City Centre: If there was indeed an identifiable "Lancaster City Centre" separate from the city of Lancaster (the settlement, not the local authority), then it would not include Lancaster University or the Port of Lancaster .  I see no purpose in this article, which will only lead to future problems when new content is added, or changes made, to this or the other or both.  Pam D 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Just to add: I live in City of Lancaster , though not in Lancaster .  Pam D 11:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge : change of mind from nominator - see below.  Pam D 14:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions .  Pam D 11:46, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's a standard GNG issue.  I don't know the place but if there's something meaningful to say (with appropriate RS) it's not necessarily right to delete.  See several other small UK cities at Category:Central business districts in the United Kingdom .  Rcsprinter123 (dialogue) 11:47, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge .  I've not found any reliable sources that speak to Lancaster having a defined city centre area with any sort of consistent definition.  The tourist information website [16] states Firstly, Lancaster is a small city (with a big story to tell!) and can easily be explored on foot.    The Bus Station is located in the city centre and Lancaster Railway station is just 5mins walk away which implies (contrary to this article) that the railway station is not in the centre centre.  a different page on the same website makes it clear that the Millennium Bridge and Skerton Bridge are not considered to be in the city centre, and describes the Aldcliffe Triangle as being about 10 minutes walk from the city centre.  This article includes the Port of Lancaster, which is about 4 miles as the crow flies from the approximate centre of the central business district and over 2½ miles from the edge of the contiguous urban area (as they appear on Google Maps).  In September 2020 Lancashire County Council launched a "Lancaster City Centre Movement and Public Realm Strategy" [17] that defined the city centre has having broad and core areas for the purposes of that study.  The first is a wider area than the Visit Lancaster website does (see page 12 of the PDF), incorporating the Castle, Cathedral, railway station and both bridges mentioned above, but nowhere near as wide as including the University let alone Port.  It also defines a "core area", within the A6 gyratory, which is a smaller area than the tourist information uses, excluding the castle and cathedral.  All this leads me to the conclusion that it's no different to most cities in having a "city centre" that is just a vaguely defined central(ish) area of the city relevant to whatever the current context is.  The article contains some good prose though that should be merged to the Lancaster, Lancashire article.  Thryduulf ( talk ) 12:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Appears to be OR as none of the sources talk about this "place".  Oaktree b ( talk ) 13:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete An article containing this information "The city centre has existed since 79 AD in the Roman Period of Great Britain and it was around this time period when the castle was built and occupied by the Duchy of Lancaster and played a vital role in the War of the Roses against the armies of Yorkshire." ought to be speedily deleted.  Sources don't reference the text.  Esemgee ( talk ) 14:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Merge I can certainly see what @ DragonofBatley was aiming for with this article, which was to replicate the likes of Liverpool city centre and Manchester city centre .  The main issue is that Lancaster isn't that big a place, so it doesn't really need separate city centre and general articles.  A.D.Hope ( talk ) 14:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree, it's unnescessary duplication in the main - and what isn't is questionable.  You could throw a whole heap of Citeneeded tags in there, as others have pointed out - the referencing is very patchy.  So the value add to the Lancaster article is pretty much zilch.  Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk ) 15:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I would like to just quickly say, when I created the article.  I spent over a couple of hours heavily writing, sourcing and laying out the article using a carefully chosen amount of pictures.  While I get the city is not as large as say Preston or Salford or Liverpool or Manchester.  I still think just like my other article (which I hope won't be also nominated for deletion) that I made which was Lincoln City Centre .  I feel the article does have a good amount of information and to quote a couple of above comments.  ""The city centre has existed since 79 AD in the Roman Period of Great Britain and it was around this time period when the castle was built and occupied by the Duchy of Lancaster and played a vital role in the War of the Roses against the armies of Yorkshire." ought to be speedily deleted. " and "Agree, it's unnescessary duplication in the main - and what isn't is questionable. " Lancaster Castle has existed since 79AD and is the oldest landmark in the city. It is established online the castle was a key fort in the War of the Roses which I read through but of course I could not simply copy and paste the information without plagurising and then it be either deleted or tagged. The article is about the main city centre (not the district or the settlement) the main economic hub and given there are two universities, a castle, cathedral, priory, city hall and old buildings. It would like Lincoln warrant an article. If Lincoln can have it and its been up for months now. Why not Lancaster? Please enlighten me given I did not just whack up a copycat article but a formal article inline with other articles like Manchester City Centre , Lincoln City Centre and Leeds City Centre ? DragonofBatley ( talk ) 20:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge - your contributions, which seem very solid, should be added to the main article on the city. I often see new editors lack confidence that their work is good enough or right for big articles that other people have created, but you have to have that confidence and work to improve articles that need more added to them. Duplicate articles confuse users and mean twice as much work to update in future. Blythwood ( talk ) 17:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete or merge with Lancaster, Lancashire -- Devoke water 13:04, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment This discussion inspired me to make a start on improving Lancaster, Lancashire , bringing it more in line with the guidance in WP:UKTOWNS , and in the course of this I found the interesting duo of Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (central area) and Listed buildings in Lancaster, Lancashire (outer areas) , which define: " the central part of the area, the boundaries of which are the railway on the west side, the Lancaster Canal on the south and east sides, and to the north, a line passing from west to east through the centre of Quay Meadow ". I didn't recognise the name "Quay Meadow" but found Google maps identifies it as the park north of the priory, south of the riverside development. On that definition, Lancaster Royal Infirmary is not in the centre (south of the canal), nor the Custom House, Lancaster which is now the Maritime Museum (north of that midway line), nor Lancaster Cathedral (east of the canal). I can see that with some 330 listed buildings in the unparished area within City of Lancaster (but not to be confused with those in the Heysham unparished area ), it was felt useful to create a split of some sort, but I don't think this can be used to justify the existence of the current Lancaster City Centre article. Pam D 12:16, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] OK, from the nominator: Merge to Lancaster, Lancashire in so far as there is content which is not already thoroughly covered in that long-established article. As far as I can see the only significant portion to which this applies is "Churches and other places of worship", though this needs to be treated with caution: the supposed Hindu temple appears to be based on an academic paper written from the University which discusses "The Hindu Temple and Modernity: Devotion, Governance and Aesthetics, 1800-1946", rather than anything to suggest the existence of such a temple in Lancaster.  And why list St Paul's Church, Scotforth in an article on the city centre? There are some dubious statements: I don't think the priory is "located within the walls of Lancaster Castle". If the statements about being a regional hub in the lead can be sourced (the current reference doesn't support), then they apply to the whole city. The existing article on the city needs some work - there are sections such as "Music" which have a lot of unsourced content - but we can improve on it rather than splitting our resources into maintaining a near-parallel article for a hard-to-define area. I've just spotted that the whole 18th-century port operation, including being a major slave trading port, gets just three sentences under "Medieval"! As for Lincoln City Centre : I don't know the place, but looking at the article it's not obvious to me that its existence is justified, but I'll leave that to others to discuss. Pam D 14:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Another article called High Street, Lincoln exists and that might be worth merging into the city centre article? High Street isn't even the name of the city centre. Ill start a discussion later on to discuss the two articles and see what is best suited. The high street or Lincoln City Centre article. DragonofBatley ( talk ) 08:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ DragonofBatley Looking at the street map of Lincoln, both High Street, Lincoln and Steep Hill seem to be valid articles on individual streets. They each focus tightly onto their one street, though the sourcing could be better. There are plenty of similar articles on specific interesting streets in UK towns and cities. There seems no reason to suggest merging either of them into anything else. Pam D 19:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions . A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 03:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or delete as unnecessary duplication, we don't normally need articles on the settlement and the centre of a settlement unless large like Manchester. Crouch, Swale ( talk ) 16:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per the discussion above (my official reason). Also because PamD is a great editor who knows her stuff (my main reason). -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 17:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment agreed, both PamD + Crouch, Swale know their stuff -- Devoke water 16:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions . Necrothesp ( talk ) 10:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting, just to be clear, editors are proposing a Merge with Lancaster, Lancashire ? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L iz Read! Talk! 14:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Liz Sorry to be unclear: yes, I for one (and I think everyone else) intended to say "Merge with Lancaster, Lancashire ".  Ah, I see I said so in my more detailed post of 3:26 pm, 23 July 2023, though not in my summary post at the top.  But thanks for checking - just in case of any doubt.  Pam D 16:38, 27 July 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: merge