Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Constituency office


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Constituency office

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NOTDICT TheLongTone (talk) 13:40, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am the original article creator, and wrote the article as it was listed on requested articles. I am not inclined to disagree with the NOTDICT argument - but on the other hand, the very similar article Surgery (politics) exists, and was my basis in the limited research I could do for the article.
 * There is much in the news on the various attacks that constituency offices have received, which could possibly be an area for expansion that would provide something more than a dictionary could? Also, as I touched on a little in the article, there could be something more to write about the involvement of Ipsa in the selection of offices.
 * Maybe we could look at a merge with the surgery article? Xii Xii  14:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep - Perhaps edit the lead sentence to specify this is in the UK, as more than one country has a parliament. In the United States, elected officials have the same situation - such as "home office", "district office", etc.  Uness someone can come up with a globally common naming for these offices, we should probably let them stay as they are. — Maile  (talk) 14:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Ireland,  and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:NOTDICT is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE issue. That an article may need clean-up (or expansion) doesn't, to my read, mean it can/should be deleted. On WP:GNG grounds, the topic seems notable. Perhaps there are overlaps between the surgery (politics) and constituency office titles. And happy to contribute to a merge discussion. But, as it stands, I can't support deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep We call this a district office in the US, and we should cover that in this article too. A few articles about them: Reywas92Talk 18:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with above discussion. Bduke (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - but there is quite a bit of overlap with Surgery (politics) which needs to be resolved. Spleodrach (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep seems to pass GNG. Actually needs additional countries to be added here instead of deletion. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:47, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * comment I still entirely fail to see what useful content could be added to this article to distinguish it from a dictionary definition. Do Dentist's Waiting Rooms deserve an article? I thought not.TheLongTone (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment. In honesty, as with the original nom, I don't think I follow the point. There appears to be consensus that waiting rooms (generally) deserve an article. As does the concept (broadly) of waiting in healthcare. (The community has also felt it appropriate for articles on other/specific types of waiting rooms - like airport lounges and green rooms.) If someone had, as you suggest, created a separate article on "dentist waiting rooms", it would likely be reasonable to redirect elsewhere. Like to the waiting room article. Rather than delete. In this case, if there are significant overlaps between constituency office (and other types of office generally) or between constituency office (and other places] for representee/representative engagement), then there are other options (alternatives to deletion) to address. If the "DICDEF" argument is that "the subject is just another a type of office/forum", then I don't (personally) read that as an argument for deletion... Guliolopez (talk) 16:49, 2 March 2024 (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.