Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mexico City (former)


 * 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-- JForget  23:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mexico City (former)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Today's Mexico City is not a different entity from the purported "former" Mexico City, anymore than Washington, DC is different and needs an article before it grew until it became coextensive and coterminus with the District of Columbia. They are one and the same city at different points in time. All the information here is repetitive and redundant with that already at Mexico_City. Moreover it is confusing to reader to suggest that there was "another" Mexico City in the past. It is also confusing as to suggest that the Federal District and Mexico City are two different entities, whereas constitutionally they are the same entity. the D únadan 23:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per a well-reasoned nomination. Nsk92 (talk) 00:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Keep per Ptcamn's and Phil Bridger's comments. The name of the article is somewhat misleading and should probably be changed to something more accurate, but this issue can be dealt with outside of this AfD. Nsk92 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. It looks like a bunch of work has been put into establishing the geopolitical history of Mexico City, a region of not-insignificant size. With links to past boundaries and a discussion at various steps, it seems this is taking shape. Several of the articles were created in the last several weeks. It may well be that improvements will be forthcoming. I can see the argument that the material is already in the main article, but taken in the context of all the articles it links to, it may be appropriate to keep this as a separate article. Frank  |  talk  01:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's strange to call this 30-year period the "former" Mexico City when the city existed at least 400 years before that. The Mexico City article has a section on jurisdiction and that can be spun off as an article if necessary. WillOakland (talk) 03:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. You're main objection here seems to be the name of this article, rather than to its existence. Changing the name to something like Mexico City Administrative District (1941–1970) can be done without deletion, although I'm sure someone else can come up with a less clumsy name. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My objection is that these details are already fully covered in the MC article and anyone wanting this info will look there, not under this name. WillOakland (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If I'm understanding this and some of the linked articles right, it is part of a series detailing the changes of the city's subdivision structure. They all need sourced, however. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 09:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are different entities. Neither the article Mexico City nor the article Mexico City (former) actually refer to a city in the sense of physical roads and buildings etc. They refer to political entities. Mexico City is officially synonymous with the Federal District, but it has only been that way since 1993 (and note that the actual urban area extends beyond the Federal District, as described in Greater Mexico City). Mexico City (former) was an administrative division within the Federal District, on the same level as the delegaciones. It is no more the same thing as the Federal District than Milpa Alta is. --Ptcamn (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But, in using the same logic, we should have several articles for each and every one of the cities in the world, because their political structure has changed during time. We should not only have one article for Tenochtitlan, but one for the municipality of Mexico Tenustitlan, another one for Mexico City (New Spain, viceroyalty), Mexico City (New Spain, intendencia), Mexico City (municipality) (during the first 100 years of independence), Mexico City (former), the one you just did, then the city mysteriously disappears from 1970 until 1993, only to reappear by being made synonymous, at least in paper, with the Federal District. It is actually the other way around. Mexico City precedes the Federal District, and Mexico City is the Federal District in virtue of it being the capital city. The city has existed regardless of the "political structure" it had. -- the D únadan  01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Other former administrative districts have their own articles, and the only difference here seems to be that this district has a similar name to other entities such as the federal district and the metropolitan area. That's no reason to treat this any differently. Compare also London, City of London, County of London, Greater London, Metropolitan Police District, Greater London Urban Area, and London Commuter Belt which are/were all separate entities so, for the same reason, have separate articles. Mexico City (former) is probably not the best name for this article, but that's a discussion for the talk page, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In all of those cases the entities have different names that someone might know to look for. WillOakland (talk) 00:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The analogy is incorrect, for all the examples refer to existing entities not to historical entities. In the same way we have an article for Mexico City and another for Greater Mexico City, and both refer to two different things. The article "Mexico City (former) refers to the same city (that is, Mexico City) but at a different point in time -even if it was politically structured in a different way. Should we have an article for Washington (former) while it was a municipality before it became coextensive with the District of Columbia? Should we have articles for each period in time for the city of London? I suppose not. -- the D únadan 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep There are many instances where municipal redistributions, mergers and the like have superseded earlier government units, and these precedent units are all worthy of articles in their own right. All these earlier units had governing structures, politicians, regulations and laws, awards, etc. many of which would of themselves be sufficiently notable to have their own articles. Furthermore, Mexico City in particular, as a capital city and one of the world's largest, is more than sufficiently notable to support a suite of related articles. Political structures are distinct from the geographic areas they represent. To transpose the analogy to the country level, this is no different from separating United States Congress, History of the United States Congress, Congress of the Confederation and, ultimately, the United States article itself. All warrant their own articles, as does this one. There are some decisions to be made about naming, however, discussions about that should best continue on this article's talk page. Debate (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was about to close this as keep, when I read some of the arguments. Dunadan makes good points. Debate's argument involving the governing structures, politicians, regulations and laws, awards, etc. doesn't convince me, as all the information could be incorporated into the main article. This also isn't comparable to the US Congress example, as the Congress of the Confederation was an entirely separate entity from the modern Congress. If the main article became too long, then summary style could be used, and "subarticles" like this could be used about the political history, but the Mexico City article certainly isn't all that long, and already incorporates all this information, and could incorporate quite a bit more. Nousernamesleft copper, not wood 22:21, 19 May 2008 (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.