Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3rd Middlesex Massachusetts House of Representatives district


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

3rd Middlesex Massachusetts House of Representatives district

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wholly unreferenced and it is unclear whether this has any notability. In any case, the same material is already in Kate Hogan where it makes more sense.  Velella  Velella Talk 10:07, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, have added references and made a few changes. More information should be added soon.(Aguyfromstow (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2015 (UTC))


 * Keep. This type of article seems to be commonplace - see Category:State legislative districts of the United States and, as a very similar example, Maryland House of Delegates District 33A. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Common place" is not a valid reason for retention - none of them may be notable.  Velella  Velella Talk 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with the above – it is standard to have articles on constituencies for second-level legislatures – see e.g. Category:Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions from 2011. I have also now expanded the article with some past results. This can't all be covered in the Kate Hogan article because multiple people have represented this district over the years. Number   5  7  09:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Indeed, it has become a Wikipedia convention to have these articles. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.