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

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:44, 2 March 2010

Legislative district of Dasmariñas City

(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

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 :::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? [[User:Reyrefran|Reyrefran]] ([[User talk:Reyrefran|talk]]) 01:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 ::::That's what it provides, can we contradict that?--[[User:Scorpion prinz|Scorpion prinz]] <sup>([[User talk:Scorpion prinz|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Scorpion_prinz|contribs]])</sup> 02:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
+KEEP IT