Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antigonish—Guysborough

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 13:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Antigonish—Guysborough

This is kind of a test case. Somebody has gone and created a separate article for every Canadian federal parliamentary district past and present. I'll concede that district information is noteworthy, but it makes no sense to create dozens of two-sentence articles to hold it. A subject can be important enough to be discussed in Wikidedia, but not big enough to deserve its own article.---Isaac R 03:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into articles on the regions perhaps? I've seen these, too and wondered if they could be expanded. Ganymead 03:18, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created these articles. There is no question that they are encyclopedic, and MANY have already been expanded by others with results, politicians that represented the districts, and other noteworthy details, etc. Note that more than a few already have inbound links, and that they have a very satisfactory categorization scheme. Fawcett5 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a suggestion, not a vote. Perhaps you could merge the stubby ones into main article(s), perhaps by region/location? (And is that an em-dash in the title?) android↔talk 03:23, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is (for the moment) an emdash in the title, the problem being that hyphens and emdashes have distinct meaning and usage in the name of electoral districts (i.e. St-Henri—St-Denis). I am aware of the issue, but no consesus has yet emerged among the involved parties about how best to deal with it) Fawcett5 03:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Real places, most contemporary ones with well over 100,000 people, but almost all within or overlapping other geographic divisions. Articles on Canadian members of parliament will link to a description of where they're from, and you simply can't describe every riding in detail this way. Btw, I've also seen many British parliamentary districts appearing on Newpages lately. Samaritan 03:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Riding articles are important and will be expanded to show voting results from former federal elections, issues, history, and demographics. The em-dash is required, at least federally, to connect different place names. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:38, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Somebody" (actually a whole Wikiproject's worth of people) created separate articles for every United Kingdom parliamentary constituency, past and present. And they expanded significantly at the time of the 2005 United Kingdom General Election. A different, less formally organized, set of somebodies is busy creating Canadian constituency articles, and they are about to fill up because Canada has the odd General Election here and there coming up too. (Note the date on the first.) Later in the year, expect a General Election in New Zealand, too. Creating boilerplate articles ahead of time is the only way to organize these things. I created several hundred of the UK Parliament constituency articles, and they were initially all almost identical, created as they were from a standard boilerplate. They aren't now. And a lot of people worked very hard to make them so. Keep. Uncle G 03:53, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
- Did you not wonder where I'd been for the past month or so? Uncle G 03:54, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
Strong keep, for the reasons mentioned above. I can't believe we're even discussing this. CJCurrie 04:12, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep political subdivisions as separate articles. --Unfocused 05:39, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't want to encourate people to go wandering around randomly listing verifiable districts, current or not, for deletion from Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAndycjp 15th May 2005
Keep, not only are these actual paces (and therefore worth articles), but the Canadian WP are a bunch of busy little beavers who are likely to make worthy things out of this and related articles. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Of course Keep and fill with results, elected representatives and boundary changes etc.. Jooler 07:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and leave it to the beavers. Kappa 07:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Noteworthy - beavers - will be filled, etc. Take a look at Canadian federal election, 2004 and 39th Canadian federal election to see how much detail Cdn Wikipedians are prepared to supply. Ground Zero 11:10, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. -- Jonel 16:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every riding has enough history to become encyclopædic, eventually. Mindmatrix 16:51, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 80N 22:03, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Clearly encylopædic topic in my opinion. -- Joolz 00:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Moose Klonimus 06:56, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. ~~Suggest deletion of nominator.~~ -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:59, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NPA. R adiant _* 13:38, May 17, 2005 (UTC) (also, keep, and this is not the place to discuss test cases)
Keep. Neutrality^talk 14:52, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
I've been vaguely concerned at the use of long dashes (— instead of -) in the article titles; is there any way this could be avoided, or is it necessary for some reason? En- and em-dashes are fine for typographical purposes, but their meaning can be confusing (at least to me). Anyway keep the articles, obviously. sjorford →•← 16:33, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll agree that it's a little odd in the address bar of a web page but it's required, at least federally, for Canadian elections. Which one do you find more confusing: Montmorency-Charlevoix-Haute-Côte-Nord or Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord? DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, expandable. For those who are still hung up on the em-dash thing, I long ago added a paragraph to electoral district (Canada) which explains in detail exactly why it's done (and why it's unavoidable.) It's the fifth paragraph down, beginning "Riding names are usually geographic in nature..." Bearcat 22:20, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.