Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency MR-1

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 keep. I'm going to be bold and go ahead and close this. It's going to be a nightmare removing all the templates, but we'll get to it. The nomination has been withdrawn and I'm going to lean towards the fact that the weak deletes didn't realize that these were "Populated, legally-recognized places". Should someone object to a non-admin closing this, please ping me on the talk page or on my talk page and I'd be more than happy to revert. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 19:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constituency MR-1[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable constituency in Pakistan. A Google search indicates no discussion in secondary sources. Consider speedy A7. GoldenRing (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Delete per nom. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you can just say that you're nominating all of the articles in Template:Constituencies of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly instead of listing some of them individually. ;) -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:56, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that's the idea. I was trying to follow the process but gave up at this point. There are still >90 of these that aren't tagged. GoldenRing (talk) 01:07, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk to me 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TNT delete; see WP:TNT if you don't know what I mean. These are ordinary legislative constituencies comparable to Pennsylvania House of Representatives, District 14 (Pennsylvania, USA) or Electoral district of Lockyer (Queensland, Australia), so they're notable, but the articles are so short as to be completely useless. Worse, they make searching more difficult: if you're trying to find online information about their subjects, you'll run into tons of Wikipedia mirrors. Nyttend (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. They're The PKs are already listed in Constituencies of Pakistan ~~(though that list doesn't quite agree with the template???)~~. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told that some are provincial, others are national. So, the MRs and WRs should probably be listed in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, now that some/most? of them are something more than a single sentence. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep User:GoldenRing picks a single article (reserved constituency) to paint all the others the same. Regarding Useless, these are the constituencies of a province with a population of more than 28 million. 99 constituencies (not considering the 23 reserved) for 28 million comes to 282,828 people per constituency. With reserved: 229,508 per constituency. They are not non-notable in Pakistan. Pakistan has 4 provinces. Please do not compare to Queensland, Australia (5 million populations which is a little bit more than the population of Peshawar District (one district out of 26). I consider this to be a blatant error. Important articles, created by User:Faizan, in trying to improve poorly covered topics on Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly.Saadkhan12345 (talk) 13:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What benefit does anyone gain from these pages? Unless there are aberrations that I've not seen (to which my TNT delete proposal wouldn't apply), they're all basically "CONSTITUENCY NAME is a constituency for the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province of Pakistan." No information whatsoever, and thus thoroughly useless to someone who's trying to learn about one of them; we are an encyclopedia, not a blue-link generator. How are we supposed to know that MR-1 is a reserved constituency? It's not in the one-line stub or in the member directory. Finally, you may wish to re-read my comparisons to QLD and PA: my point is that they're notable, just like QLD and PA legislative districts are, but that they're so thoroughly junk that we'd be better off without them. As is, these substubs harm the process of building the encyclopedia; we're so extensively mirrored that their existence causes there to be lots of unreliable sources with the same titles, getting in the way of finding reliable sources about these constituencies. Nyttend (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yes no benefit is gained from these cons. but if you are a little patient they are being improved for exammple here. If you look at following revisions.

here
Here. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, my TNT deletion proposal doesn't apply to things that you've expanded; thank you for that one, and for any others that you've done likewise. I don't understand the point of your links to the AK-47 and to the Glasgow Anniesland constituency. Let me just remind you that all information ought to be cited, and neither of the links in the References section of PK-01 mentions that specific constituency; it's not placed between the NAs and the PPs at http://elections.com.pk/results.php?elecID=6&start=251, either. Please begin adding sources that say exactly what you say they say. Nyttend (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm trying to say is your TNT proposal does apply to any of these. TNT is for hopelessly irreparable pages. These are stubs. How are they hopelessly irreparable and the damage is beyond fixing? Plus the Ak-47 and the other was there to show you that every featured/good article starts with a stub. Btw thanks for the feedback. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Although the articles are in a poor state, I believe the subjects are inherently notable – they should be left there to be expanded – what purpose does deletion serve? These are second level constituencies, akin to those of the Scottish parliament or California State Assembly, of which we have entire sets (see Category:Constituencies of the Scottish Parliament and Category:California State Assembly districts) and I see no reason why a second level constituency in Pakistan is less notable than those in other countries (particularly ones much smaller than it – Khyber Pakhtunkhwa has a population of 20 million, making it larger than a significant number of countries). Number 57 15:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @Harsh 2580: Improvements are beginning to be made by Saadkhan12345 - Constituency PK-01 (Peshawar-I) now has the results from the last election and is referenced. Election results have also been added to some of the others (e.g. Constituency PK-02 (Peshawar-II), Constituency PK-03 (Peshawar-III), Constituency PK-04 (Peshawar-IV) etc) Number 57 12:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just want to bring to the notice of all editors that we already have articles on both, the legislative assemblies and the Lok Sabha (Upper House) constituencies in India. MLA's and MP's from respective constituencies have their own articles. I doubt many of these MP's/MLA's have significant coverage per GNG, but there are articles on most of them. This is a list of state wise constituencies from Vidhan Sabha i.e, a Legislative assembly. Just for example, look at this article on a legislative assembly in India - Dehradun Cantt (Uttarakhand Assembly constituency). All the references are primary. I would just say that, if those in favor of keep want the articles in question to be kept then these shouldn't be just a one-line stubs, because they would serve no purpose and I am skeptical that any of these legislative assemblies would gain media coverage in the future, and hence all these articles should atleast have information on the elected representatives from the constituencies. Harsh (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Weak Delete - Agree completely with User:Nyttend. All of these articles must be deleted. They add nothing of value to the topic. Constituencies of Pakistan must be expanded until it is considered appropriate for any of these constituencies to have their own standalone article. Harsh (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my position from Delete to Weak delete. Harsh (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there is non-repeated information in any of the articles, merge to Constituencies of Pakistan (or another national/provincial constituencies list based on ClarityFiend's comment); otherwise delete per Harsh_2580 - expand into standalone articles only if it becomes appropriate. Hustlecat ^{do it!} 20:24, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Those arguing to keep these articles need to demonstrate that they meet the general notability guideline or some subject-specific notability criterion. As far as I am aware (someone please correct me if, as is quite possible, I've missed it), there is no specific notability criteria that applies to electoral constituencies. That being so, they are only notable if they meet the general criterion of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I sure can't find any. Even the examples of 'improved' pages only reference primary sources (electoral commissions etc giving results). It's hard to imagine why local constituencies would receive significant coverage in the WP:RS, but perhaps there is some category of literature that I'm not aware of that discusses these? I'll also ask around editors who've worked on eg the Scottish constituencies about notability in this area. GoldenRing (talk) 05:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to bear in mind that we are talking about an area of a developing country where (a) it is less common for print media to be available online, (b) the local media is likely to be in Urdu, Pashto and numerous other languages that aren't English and (c) these languages are not written in Latin script. As a result, it's not surprising that you can't find much coverage of them online – the category of literature you're looking for probably won't be available to you.
- Also, whilst there is no guideline on constituency notability (as far as I am aware), as I pointed out above, we have complete sets of articles on second-level administrative constituencies in several cases (and for jurisdictions much smaller than this province), which suggests there may be some kind of precedent that these are indeed notable. A related guideline is WP:POLITICIAN, which states that members of state and provincial legislatures are notable. I would say that if the politician is automatically notable, the constituency they are elected from is too. Number 5 7 10:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

maybe we should consider hiring a lawyer. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because they have not been given enough time to expand... since they are constituencies and have a multitude of people voting in them, there's no question of notability similar to all real places being notable once proved that they exist. Further, they should not be "quick AFD'd" (after a month? of creation)... let's give them a reasonable time to expand (WP:PAK doesn't have much editors as compared to other areas and projects). If no improvement is observed, then we can discuss a merge with the parent article if it is not adding much value in an independent article. Even in that case, I would support the merge only to cut down on the navigation. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are clearly notable, so they should stay, regardless of how badly written they are. Badly written or incomplete articles need to be improved or expanded, not deleted. This seems to me a classic case of systemic bias - just think how you would treat constituencies of comparable size in the UK or US. --NSH002 (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I came across a similarly-unreferenced article on a constituency in the UK or US, I would nominate that for deletion, too - I just happened to stumble across these articles. GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't delete them. You add references. Btw theres no deadline on Wikipedia. If you happened to find a stub on a notable topic (even one sentence) first think of improving it. If not thn tag it. Almost every featured/good article article starts out as a stub. Saadkhan12345 (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is not an issue as electoral districts and constituencies are generally notable, and there are hundreds if not thousands of articles existing on them. It is also premature at this point to have an AfD as the articles in question have not been given enough time to develop. Mar4d (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to cite a policy or guideline for that opinion? GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Closing admins please note, I've tried to start a conversation [here] regarding notability criteria for constituencies - it may be appropriate to defer closing this AfD until that discussion comes to some conclusion. GoldenRing (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn On further reading of WP:GEOLAND I think these constituencies fall under the provision for Populated, legally-recognized places. As such I wish to withdraw this nomination. I'm uncertain of the exact procedure for doing so, though - could someone help? GoldenRing (talk) 06:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@GoldenRing: Non-admin closure isn't possible. Wait for another admin to close discussion. Harsh (talk) 12:36, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all -All recognized places are presumed to be notable and are not required to meet GNG. TNT doesn't apply in any the above listed article, as I see them now. There is nothing to fix. They are neither WP:PROMO nor WP:COPYVIO. They are just short article. I'm not sure how did an admin miss that, Wikipedia is a work in Process. These are all created just 2 weeks ago. Give them time to develop. As far as notability is not concerned and articles in question don't fall under WP:NOT, I see no reason to not keep them all. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 09:55, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - Legislative districts are an inherently encyclopedic topic. WP:IAR — use common sense to improve the encyclopedia. Carrite (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2014 (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.