Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislative district of Dasmariñas City (2nd nomination)

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 Some clarity is needed but no valid reason to deleteMike Cline (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative district of Dasmariñas City[edit]

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

This article is misleading as this district is part of the representation of the province of Cavite, not a separate one as this article tends to imply. Reyrefran (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you're still not formatting the AFD right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Article has basis for existence as Section 64 of Republic Act 9723 provides for it, which was successfully ratified in a plebiscite on November 25, 2009[1]--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Even if there's basis as we could present it, it doesn't make it a district independent from the representation of Cavite -- hence it is also referred to as Cavite's 4th district. If this is independent as what Scorpion prinz would suggest esp. in previous debates, Cavite should only have six congressional districts. According to said law, the reason why it's named "Legislative district of Dasmariñas" is PRIMARILY because of its cityhood (thus the literal sense, but not yet the functional sense), BUT IT MEANS THAT IT IS STILL PART OF CAVITE'S REPRESENTATION. Reyrefran (talk) 03:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way I'd like to point this out -- "It was part of the representation of Cavite until 2010." CONTRADICTS with the enabling law which increases the districts of Cavite to seven. If Dasmariñas would be a lone district in which enabling law was literally due to its cityhood, then the numbering of Cavite's districts should only be up to six. San Jose Del Monte district in Bulacan is not called the 5th District of Bulacan while the districts of Antipolo City are not even called the 3rd & 4th Districts of Rizal. These are contrary to what Dasma should be, which is part of the representation of Cavite. Reyrefran (talk) 13:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cavite's redistricting was passed 6 days prior to the ratification of Dasmariñas cityhood. Since Dasmariñas is the only local government unit that composed Cavite's 4th district, revising the law which redistricted Cavite wouldn't have made any impact at all to compromise its representation. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are we saying that Cavite only has six districts and Dasmariñas is no longer part of it? Reyrefran (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just relaying what the law provides. Republic Act 9723 took effect 33 days[2] after Republic Act 9727 and since Section 68 of RA 9723 provides that "All laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly."--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and decide on the article talk page whether the article should be called Legislative district of Dasmariñas City or 4th legislative district of Cavite or whatever. It's a well established principle for other countries that entities such as UK parliamentary constituencies or US congressional districts have separate articles, even if they only cover part of a municipality (for example I have lived in the Harrow West, Hammersmith North and Brent North constituencies, all of which cover(ed) only part of a municipality but all of which have articles). Let's get some kind of consistency and treat legislative districts in the Philippines the same way. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Philippine legislative districts are consistent: they're grouped under the province/city they are a part of. With all of the information that is there yet, this is the best way of giving the information. When we have the party, and all other information, then we can consider splitting them into child articles. But as of now, no. –Howard the Duck 12:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just an afterthought, what if I move that this be Merged back to the Legislative districts of Cavite article as technically this is still part of Cavite's representation (4th District)? Reyrefran (talk) 15:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the law provides, and let me reiterate, Republic Act 9723 has effectively amended/modified Republic Act 9727.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then you are of the position that Cavite in reality has six districts and that the 4th district of Cavite is inexistent then, using these bases? Reyrefran (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what it provides, can we contradict that?--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.204.66.173 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP!!!!!!!!!! Dasmarinas City should be a lone district because Dasmarinas became a city which made it a lone district. Republic Act 9723 Section 64 states that the City of Dasmariñas shall have its own legislative district to commence in the next national election after the effectivity of this Act. Dasmarinas City will be voting 12 city councilors at large. Only lone districts who voted at large votes 12 city councilors. Cities that are not lone districts only votes 10.

Delete — There's no point in creating a separate Wikipedia page for a district that is completely identical to the fourth district of Cavite. A redirect should be enough, with a note that the fourth district is also alternatively known as the 'Lone district of Dasmariñas City.' Cavite is represented by seven districts, which cover its 19 towns and 4 component cities. Saying that Dasmariñas City is not part of the representation of Cavite is factually incorrect - Cavite exercises jurisdiction over Dasmariñas, and Dasmariñas is a component city of Cavite. It just so happens that when Dasmariñas became a city, the fourth district was renamed. This calls for the rewording of the leading sections of the articles for the districts of San Jose del Monte and Antipolo, which both imply that these cities are no longer part of the provinces of Bulacan and Rizal. --- isagani (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had Republic Act 9723 not taken effect 33 days after [3] Republic Act 9727, I would gladly rescind my position to keep this. However since and Section 68 of RA 9723 provides that "All laws, decrees, rules and regulations or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended or modified accordingly." Representation in the House of Representatives has never implied that only independent cities are qualified to have their own representation. Cities regardless of their relation to their mother province only have to meet the population requirement. If you are gonna stick to that point of view, shouldn't Olongapo, Angeles, Naga, Santiago City should have their sole representation? And it's like saying Isabela City is not part of the Province of Basilan? --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 04:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get the point - more explanation please? But I'll still say something anyway: the cities you mentioned don't have their own representatives because they don't meet the population criterion (except for Angeles) and most importantly, Congress has not legislated for their own districts yet. The difference with the case of Dasmariñas is that the fourth district was created first, and even if the city charter called for a separate district, the district already existed when the city charter was ratified - it was just given a new (alternative) name. My stand does not deny the legality, appropriateness or existence of Dasmariñas's separate congressional district. My opinion is that creating another article which will contain the same exact information as what will be posted in the 'fourth district' section of the Cavite article is unnecessary and redundant. Dasma should appear on the districts template, and the article name should remain, but I believe that a redirect with proper labelling of the fourth district being alternatively called the 'Lone district of Dasmariñas City' should be enough. I personally cannot possibly think of any information that would be present in a separate 'legislative district of Dasmariñas City' article that would not be permitted to be included in the fourth district section anyway. Only when the Dasmariñas receives a second seat would it be appropriate to create a separate article. --- isagani (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP! It is unfair for Dasmarinas City to not have an article about its Lone District. Dasmarinas City became a lone district after its cityhood took effect. IF we are going to delete or merge this article with the 7th districts of Cavite then we should also merge articles of component cities like San Jose Del Monte and Antipolo City to their respective provincial districts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 01:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antipolo and San Jose del Monte are different cases, in that they are not called "3rd and 4th districts of Rizal" or "5th district of Bulacan," unlike the case of Dasmariñas. Plus, due to the way these cities were given Congressional representation (which was done by piecemeal and did not involve province-wide redistricting), these cities do not have the same voting clout that Dasmariñas has in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. Antipolo's two districts only send one representative each to the SP (as opposed to the normal of 2 each, along with 3 each from Rizal's 1st and 2nd districts, for a total of 10 SP members), and San Jose del Monte still forms part of the province's 4th SP district (as opposed to having a regular SP district of its own which will send 2 SP members, with the four other districts sending 2 each as well for a total of 10 SP members). The lone district of Dasmariñas serves a function no different from the fourth district of Cavite, occupies the same territory and represents the same people. Why fill a separate page with the same information as what will be in the 4th district section anyway? --- isagani (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The matter with the law is the newer one takes precedence, specially if it provides a repealing clause such was what the City Charter of Dasmariñas has.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 07:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of that and am not challenging the fact that the lone district exists in law, but what I'm concerned about is redundancy. We should either keep the lone district page and fully link the 4th district section from the districts of Cavite page to it (and remove all information there, which will be presented in the lone district page anyway), OR reduce the lone district page to a simple redirect that links to the 4th district section of the districts of Cavite page. --- isagani (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They earned the right, to have it under its own name. --Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 14:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just performed the first suggestion I mentioned above in order to end this. See what is now in Legislative districts of Cavite#4th District. There is now NO redundancy. Is anyone satisfied with the compromise? --- isagani (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP!~~ If we are going to merge this article with 7 districts of Cavite. I will now consider the deletion of Articles about component cities like San Jose in Bulacan and Antipolo City in Rizal. I will recommend to merge it also with articles of their provincial districts since they also vote for board members. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 01:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is just vendetta against perfectly fine articles. Stop messing with them please. --- isagani (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep – I get your point Isagani, I just don't get the intent of Reyrefran, who endorsed to delete this, after he vigorously fought hard for the retention of Legislative districts of Bacoor and Imus, and even got blocked to edit anything after he resurrected those articles multiple times. It's just that Dasmariñas got for itself a piece of legislation to earn it a separate article. Had Dasmariñas' charter got approved before the redistricting of Cavite, I would have voted to delete this, since the latter shall take precedence, however it was the otherway around.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 06:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP IT!~~ Why not give the Lone district of Dasmarinas one page in wikipedia. Dasmarinas with a population of 556,000 deserves such a lone district article in wikipedia. It is only 1 page and why we don't give it to Dasmarinas City. Dasmarinas City have a hard time becoming a city. Dasmarinas is part of 4th district but its cityhood made it a lone district. If it is not lone the Republic Act 9723 sec 64 should states that city of Dasmarinas is still part of the 4th district of Cavite. But Republic Act 9723 states that Dasmarinas shall have its own legislative district. PLEASE KEEP IT! It is my first time to write an article in wikipedia yet you want to delete it. If you will delete it I will also nominate the deletion or merger of the districts of Antipolo and San Jose del Monte to theirerespective province. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete then merge. isagani has perfectly presented the arguments here;the Lone district of Dasmariñas is but an alternate name of the fourth district of Cavite. As such, I move that the contents of this article be merged back to the Legislative districts of Cavite under the article for the 4th district as it is NEVER separated from the representation of Cavite; only that it was given an alternate name by the city charter. Or do the other formula, a redirect.

And by the way, I do see a potential sockpuppet of Scorpion prinz on board here.Reyrefran (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As I understand this now, the Dasma City charter superseded the Cavite redistricting law. So that means, there are only six districts in Cavite: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6th and 7th. What Isagani did as a compromise was the best way to handle this, under the "4th district" in the Cavite district article is a link to the Dasma City district. In the future, I'd also push for what Phil Bridger wants, a separate article for each district. We can easily do that, we only need the parties and the LGU where they came from to complete them. –Howard the Duck 11:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Be careful of how you word it: "There are only six districts in Cavite" implies that somehow Dasmariñas is not under the provincial supervision of Cavite, which is my beef with the Antipolo and SJDM articles. Let's get it all straightened out: congressional districts are not part of the local government structure - they are merely groupings of LGUs used to represent a portion of the national population in the national legislature, be they a single province (district of Camiguin), independent city (district of Muntinlupa), component city (district of San Jose del Monte) or component municipality (3rd district of Cavite); a cluster of component municipalities and/or component cities within one province (5th district of Cebu); a cluster of component municipalities within one province plus an adjacent independent city (1st district of South Cotabato); a cluster of barangays within one city (2nd district of Cagayan de Oro); or a cluster of barangays from different higher-level LGUs (district of Taguig-Pateros, and arguably, the 2nd district of Makati which has territory under the jurisdiction of both Makati and Taguig). Congressional district groupings have no bearing on one member LGU's relationship to another: Pateros still operates independently from Taguig, South Cotabato still does not partake in any revenue sharing scheme with the city of General Santos (and vice-versa), the provincial government of Bulacan still has jurisdiction over the city of San Jose del Monte, and the Maguindanao provincial government still does not have any authority to meddle in the affairs of the government of Cotabato City. If one must insist, the proper wording should be there are six districts officially enumerated under the designation "Cavite," which is a superficial but nonetheless still correct way of putting the situation into words, seeing as clearly the lone district of Dasmariñas functions no differently from the 4th district, but officially operates under that (alternative) name. --- isagani (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I do agree that it's high time to create separate pages for each congressional district, just like in the case of the United States. Not only will that be better for presenting election results within each district, including defunct ones, but also much better for when I upload maps that show the historical evolution of the territorial coverage of each district starting from 1916. I would also like to suggest that the titles of pages be changed to "Congressional district of xxx" in order to distinguish them from other existing legislative districts in local government, such as 1st Sangguniang Panlalawigan district of Agusan del Norte/Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts of Agusan del Norte or 2nd Sangguniang Panlungsod district of Taguig/Sangguniang Panlalawigan districts of Taguig City. --- isagani (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to both statements: Yes Isagani, that was my beef with the phrasing too. Check out the long off-topic discussion at the Bacoor district AFD. As for separate articles, we only need parties and place of residence, otherwise it is good to go. –Howard the Duck 01:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congressional representation DOES NOT in anyway suggest or implies that a city has become independent of the province, it's only a matter of attaning the population requirement and legislation to effect it. They are apples and oranges.--Scorpion prinz ^{(Talk | contribs)} 06:25, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~VERY STRONG KEEP!~~ I have seen the 7 districts of Cavite and I'm satisfied with what Isagani have done in that article. I will be only satisfied if the nomination for the deletion of this article is removed. So please stop this argue and retain this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) 13:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS: Can we now agree that the compromise that I executed (wherein the section about the 4th district of Cavite has been replaced with a link to the lone district of Dasmariñas) is adequate? If so, can someone move to close this issue, especially to stop Arthurchanning (talk • contribs) from constantly insisting on (vindictively) asking that the SJDM and Antipolo articles be deleted too? --- isagani (talk)

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.