Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cumnock and Holmhead

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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. (NAC) --Jmundo (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumnock and Holmhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable article about a defunct type of subdivision. ninety:one 20:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn. ninety:one 22:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Defunct or not, it's still notable per WP:N as it's obviously the subject of at least the Encylopedia Britanica. Notability is not temporary. --Oakshade (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it's notable, and notability is definitely not permanent. Aoubt 5% of that page has any relevance today, and it is absolutely no use to any reader. It's not even like it could be updated - the subject simply no longer exists. If a reader wanted to find out about Cumnock and Holmhead a hundred years ago, they would go to EB. ninety:one 21:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Didn't say it's only verifiable, but it specifically that it passes WP:Notability.--Oakshade (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - official administrative divisions are notable and sources are available that meet WP:N. As Oakshade says, once notability has been established it is permanent - see WP:NTEMP. As local government changes plenty of these become defunct but we don't delete historic content because it is no longer current. Nor would we delete, by way of another example example, a notable company, simply because it has been liquidated. Smile a While (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can now see why one might want to keep it, but still don't think it's really worth it! I'll withdraw the nom... ninety:one 22:03, 6 January 2009 (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.