Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Zamboanga Peninsula, 2010


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 21:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Zamboanga Peninsula, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article too trivial to merit existence. Plus, there doesn't appear to be any information contained in the article. As it is, this article is a mere list of statistics and any interpretation would be orignial research, mayhap with some hidden political agenda. Delete. Rasputin72 (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This doesn't even need a "strong" or even "speedy" keep. Upcoming election. Check out Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2010 for a list of articles to delete. – Howard  the   Duck  16:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say merge into the main Philippine House of Representatives elections, 2010 article (or possibly a new 'results of the 2010 election' article), but this article has no useful content other than the date of the election, which can be gained from the main article anyway. At present it is just a placeholder article anyway. In response to Howard the Duck, the links on the Philippine House of Reps... page lead to the articles for the legislative districts themselves, not the results for the 2010 election in those districts. Delete. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried keeping them there, but it grew into 41 kilobytes and the lists aren't even half-done, so once the lists are complete, add in the votes, it'll hover at around 200 kilobytes.
 * As for the links, they should link there, since it shows the reader what the districts are made up of. These articles will be useful and brimming with info once the election period gets going. – Howard  the   Duck  17:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I have a couple of suggestions. Firstly, we can't have placeholder pages such as the one currently up for deletion. They hold no content whatsoever. Feel free to create these types of pages in May. Right now the pages hold no content. If you really want a template/whatever to house this, it might be best to put it in the userspace. JulieSpaulding (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So what do you call this 2011 BCS National Championship Game? And there are some pages that do have content. Are we going to delete this and let the others remain?
 * And this is a national election. The "election period" doesn't start in May. Filing for candidacies has ended last year, campaign begins in March, and there will be enough content for these articles in days. – Howard  the   Duck  17:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do not want to get drawn into a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion, the BCS National thing has information that isn't just tables drawn up in anticipation of a coming election. I would, however, support the creation of a 'results of the 2010 election' page for the national election (but not for each legislative division) or putting the results on the pages for the division description itself. I know I'm not being that clear, so:

Say our division's name is called Calgary. We already have a page called Legislative division of Calgary. You would like to create a page called '2010 election results for the legislative division of Calgary' or something similar. I think that both those articles could be merged into the one.

Besides, I still think that there is no need for a placeholder. However, there hasn't been that much of a contribution from anyone else here, so I'd like to hear some more suggestions so we can move forward. JulieSpaulding (talk) 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The articles are not based on legislative divisions, they are based on larger grouping of legislative divisions. – Howard  the   Duck  03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I say we just delete it, post the results elsewhere when they come into existence five months in the future, and move on. I'm going to AFD all these articles, thanks for your ideas. Rasputin72 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What? Are you going create articles for elections in say, France, after the results are known? What the fuck is that? – Howard  the   Duck  03:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please be WP:CIVIL. I know you are passionate about this but swearing at others isn't going to get you anywhere. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just answer the question. Being civil to someone is earned. The arguments weren't logical. – Howard  the   Duck  03:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Civility on Wikipedia is not 'earned', it is a given. According to WP:CIVIL, "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." I feel that I'm getting drawn into a 'playing the man not the ball' debate here so I think it's time that we all just calm down. Howard, you, as well as every other Wikipedia editor, must remain civil at all times. I would like to hear other editors' views on this matter as I think the message will be made clearer with more contributors. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I would prefer to take this conversation off the AfD discussion as I'm afraid that we will move a little too far off-topic. I suggest we move the discussion about civility into the user talk namespace, keeping arguments about whether the page satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion policies here. JulieSpaulding (talk) 08:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This seems to me a useful way of providing full election information, party and candidate details etc, pre-election and results after election day.  The editor has not created one page per constituency but one per region as is the case for many other countries.  If we can have pages like Milton Keynes South (UK Parliament constituency) in Great Britain, we can tolerate a few parallel pages covering a place far away of which we (or at least I) know little.  --Sussexonian (talk) 00:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment' Actually, this page is not a constituency page. I would be happy with a page for (constituency) but this is merely 'Results for the Philippine national election in the region of (constituency)'. As you can see, one needs to be kept and one seems to be too trivial. JulieSpaulding (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not even a "region of constituency," whatever that is. Regions of the Philippines and Legislative districts of the Philippines are different. The different constituencies are grouped together, since having articles for elections for every constituency is inappropriate and even I would oppose that. A more equivalent parallel will be United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2008 (actually, if I'd use the U.S. articles as templates, this article will be further split into Philippine House of Representatives elections in Zamboanga del Norte, 2010, Philippine House of Representatives elections in Zamboanga del Sur, 2010, Philippine House of Representatives elections in Zamboanga Sibuguy, 2010 and Philippine House of Representatives elections in Zamboanga City, 2010). BTW, I have yet to see a deletion argument using Wikipedia policy. All of this "placeholder" and empty arguments will go away once the articles are filled up. – Howard  the   Duck  04:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for citing the Alabama article. I agree that the Alabama article should exist, but the Alabama article had useful content in it before the election. The placeholder argument remains whilst the articles have not yet been filled up. JulieSpaulding (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Alabama's 2008 election article was created in October 2007, more than a year prior to the election. The last edit for 2007 shows a placeholder-like article. Editing, as expected, picked up in January 2008. Same thing here. Don't really see this "placeholder" argument even in the short term. – Howard  the   Duck  13:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Perhaps the objection is being made to the form of a table being prepared for an election that will take place a mere five months from now, but "too trivial to merit existence" is not something that I agree with. To put it in perspective, the population of the districts in "Region IX" of the Philippines (Zamboanga) is 3.2 million, roughly the same as the State of Iowa.  If someone were to write an article about the upcoming primary and general elections in Iowa's five Congressional districts, I would find it equally difficult to describe that as trivial.  Really, I'm not sure what the objection really is. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is directed at everyone (not just your comment Mandsford)... don't forget WP:CRYSTAL. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh. I've been waiting for someone to invoke WP:CRYSTAL. How does it fall under that policy?
 * "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" -- Event is scheduled, and is almost certain to take place, unless war or some really bad thing/s happen/s.
 * "predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names" -- Dunno how this falls into this criterion.
 * "extrapolation, speculation, and 'future history'" -- Again dunno how this falls into this criterion.
 * The fourth one is on scientific stuff. -- Again dunno how this falls into this criterion.
 * – Howard  the   Duck  15:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment We still can't forget the fact that at present, the page is nothing but a group of empty tables. I would support the inclusion of a page like this (although I would prefer it merged into another... but that's a different story) but not now, where it's just acting as a placeholder. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with this argument: it won't be a placeholder forever. Unlike what the nominator did to another one of these articles, these won't be blank forever. I created these in December and by a few weeks many districts have entries already. In the coming weeks, more entries will be added. I don't see the problem. – Howard  the   Duck  15:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I hate to make it seem like there's some kind of a two-person war going on over here, in the absence of any other editors contributing to this particular argument, I feel obligated to jump right back in :) I know it won't be a placeholder forever, but the terms 'permanent placeholder' just can't go together in the same sentence. All I'm saying is that until we get some results from the election in May, the page is just going to be a collection of blank tables unless it's deleted. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going around in circles. We don't need to wait for May to get results. We can get the candidates and their parties. I just got Zamboanga City's candidates. Later someone or I will add the other candidates. It's like having an article about a sports game with the competitors, arena but no score/result. – Howard  the   Duck  16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I can see that you are very passionate about this, so I will make this post my last here until some other editors weigh in on the situation so as not to devolve into incivility. We have articles like Super Bowl XLIV because we know a lot about the selection process, half-time show, etc. already. All we know about the Philippine election in the Zamboanga Peninsula is what date it'll be held, and possibly who the candidates will be. However, I know both you and I are citing a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, so both our arguments might not be valid. JulieSpaulding (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To repeat the points in favour of keep, we have a number of articles ready for candidate names to be inserted (and I hope Howard has access to these, and intends to provide them otherwise I may agree with deletion). The number is not excessive (one per region of the country not one per seat).  There would be no doubt about keeping such a page in the case of future UK or US elections.  Furthermore, since Julie has used the word 'placeholder', how does that differ from a 'stub', of which there are thousands on Wikipedia which survive deletion proposals even when they are not actively being worked on by anyone? Sussexonian (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Mkativerata (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions.  —Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Every election above the municipal level is notable. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This article is not about the election. It's about the results of the election in a very small part of the Philippines. In addition, we're not saying it's not notable. At present, it's just a placeholder. Anyway, it looks like the tide is turning towards 'keep', so it looks like Howard the Duck has won his battle and can stop "going around in circles"... JulieSpaulding (talk) 02:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * So Alabama is a "very small part" of the United States? This argument smacks of WP:CSB more than anything.
 * Note to the closing admin: There are several more identical articles under deletion. If this is kept/delete, the same fate must be given to the articles in the following deletion discussions:
 * Philippine House of Representatives elections in Caraga, 2010
 * Philippine House of Representatives elections in the Ilocos Region, 2010
 * Thanks. – Howard  the   Duck  03:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Howard, I am definitely not being biased in favour of the United States. I am Canadian :) JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what your nationality is. We were talking about Alabama so I stuck the comparisons there. – Howard  the   Duck  11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Plus you can be biased for French topics even if you are from Turkmenistan so... – Howard  the   Duck  11:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I was just saying that I wasn't from the United States just to clear up any thoughts that 'oh, she's from the US so she will be biased in favor of US-related articles'. JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring that up. The reason why I used the U.S. was that it has the most similar structure (or the one that I am familiar with aside from the Philippines), and Alabama was the first state in the Union, at least alphabetically. – Howard  the   Duck  12:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No probs. JulieSpaulding (talk) 12:32, 9 January 2010 (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.