Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislative district of Imus
- 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 delete. Cirt (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legislative district of Imus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article is misleading as the municipality of Imus is only referred to as the 3rd district of Cavite, thereby part of the representation of the province of Cavite. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 05:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If Dasmariñas was able to get its own legislative district by name but it is still within under Cavite's representation (it being considered the 4th district), shouldn't it also be the same for Bacoor & Imus as these are lone districts as well? (You might be thinking that Bacoor & Imus doesn't deserve to be considered as "lone districts" as they're municipalities, whereas Dasmariñas is a city and have the right to be considered as such) That just puts Dasmariñas, Imus & Bacoor in equal footing. Reyrefran (talk) 10:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It depends on the enabling laws. Even before the reapportionment of Cavite, Dasma would have had its own representation already. I dunno how the law reapportioning Cavite was written, but I'd assume the laws named these new districts as "Cavite-1st" to "Cavite-7th", with Cavite-4th being Dasma (even though Cavite would've not been reapportioned, Dasma's district would've been "Cavite"-4th anyway). The districts being composed wholly of municipalities won't have a factor on how they were named. We had Malabon-Navotas, Makati-San Juan and Taguig-Pateros for the longest time. IMHO, the only way to determine how "Legislative district/s of Foo" are to be named is to look it up on their respective enabling laws. I'd even consider Legislative district of San Jose del Monte City and the ill-fated Malolos district as parts of Bulacan's Congressional contingent since both cities are component cities of Bulacan (I did follow this option in Philippine House of Representatives elections in Central Luzon, 2010#San Jose del Monte and the identical situation between Antipolo and Rizal).
- Ergo, my options are merge and redirect this and Bacoor back to Legislative districts of Cavite if the enabling law states them as such, or keep if the law names them as "Legislative district of Imus" and not as "Cavite's xth legislative district". –Howard the Duck 14:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RA 9723 (Dasmariñas cityhood) was ratified and took effect only after the approval of RA 9727 (Cavite's apportionment into 7 legislative districts), thus it takes precedence. The former provided for the creation of the Lone District of Dasmariñas City, hence it maybe referred to as such. But to say that Bacoor and Imus are lone districts are simply inaccurate. As per Article VI, Sec. 5, paragraphs (1) & (3)[1], only provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area granted representation. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, no. But we do have a separate district articles for component cities that have districts alone of their own, like San Jose del Monte. –Howard the Duck 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually Howard, it's a yes, since RA9723 provided for it. It's just that it took effect just a few months after RA9727 was passed. So since it doesn't compromise its representation after all, hence RA9727 didn't need amendments. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But they're still a part of Cavite, isn't it? Unless Dasma became a highly-urbanized city. That's why I've always considered the representative from San Jose del Monte as a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation.
- We're talking about legislative districts which has no bearing whether a city is a component/independent or HUC. Don't confuse it with that.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the representative from San Jose del Monte not a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation? –Howard the Duck 00:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We're talking about legislative districts which has no bearing whether a city is a component/independent or HUC. Don't confuse it with that.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But they're still a part of Cavite, isn't it? Unless Dasma became a highly-urbanized city. That's why I've always considered the representative from San Jose del Monte as a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation.
- Actually Howard, it's a yes, since RA9723 provided for it. It's just that it took effect just a few months after RA9727 was passed. So since it doesn't compromise its representation after all, hence RA9727 didn't need amendments. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Technically, no. But we do have a separate district articles for component cities that have districts alone of their own, like San Jose del Monte. –Howard the Duck 09:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- RA 9723 (Dasmariñas cityhood) was ratified and took effect only after the approval of RA 9727 (Cavite's apportionment into 7 legislative districts), thus it takes precedence. The former provided for the creation of the Lone District of Dasmariñas City, hence it maybe referred to as such. But to say that Bacoor and Imus are lone districts are simply inaccurate. As per Article VI, Sec. 5, paragraphs (1) & (3)[1], only provinces, cities and the Metropolitan Manila area granted representation. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Howard San Jose del Monte is not part of Bulacan's representation in the House of Representatives, since the creation of the Lone district of SJDM. SJDM just elects Sangguniang Panlalawigan representatives with its former district, but it shouldn't be confused with that, they are apples and oranges.--Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 01:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But SJDM is a component city of Bulacan, isn't it?
- My point is we shouldn't be separating legislative districts only because they have it alone for themselves. SJDM is still a part of Bulacan and their representatives are a part of Bulacan's delegation, even though they're not grouped with them. –Howard the Duck 10:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comparison: It's not like New York's 1st congressional district, which is composed solely of Suffolk Country be separated from New York State's congressional delegation. –Howard the Duck 11:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd make it appear then that the Lone districts of component cities of provinces are just sub-districts. I tend not to make a comparison between Philippine and US representations, it will make the analogy more complicated when it comes to the representations of independent cities, and they apportion districts in the US differently from us - thats why they're so fond of gerrymandering to gain a party following. In the US, representation is assigned by state and from that level it is then divided. It's a totally different scenario for us, we have our own Constitution which stipulates representation of 1 at least per province and 1 for a city which has attained the population requirement. Our Congress creates these legislative districts regardless these cities are component of a province or not. Hence once these city legislative districts are created, they are considered detached from the provincial representation, should the province's municipalities and cities which haven't attained the population requirement be redistricted, it cannot just re-attach (just in case its excess population could add another district) the Lone district of the city which used to belong under its representation because that would simply compromise the city charter which mostly provides the creation of these city legislative districts. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno where you got subdistricts, and gerrymandering, although gerrymandering is also applied in the current non-system: see the Camarines Sur brouhaha and the ill-fated Malolos City district.
- My point is, if a city like SJDM gets its own legislative district, and is "detached" from the grouping of districts from the rest of Bulacan, the SJDM is still a part of Bulacan's Congressional delegation. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a nutshell, in the Philippines, provinces and cities with a population of least 250,000 (and Metro Manila LGUs) are on equal footing, hence they are granted their own representation. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is relevant. SJDM may not be "numbered" as "Bulacan-5th" but in reality it is the 5th district in Bulacan. Same thing here for Dasma, only that it was given its own number. I'm neutral on keeping the Dasma district article but the Imus and Bacoor district articles have to be merged back. –Howard the Duck 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that we've stemmed from the main issue. So this article then had to be deleted. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I fail to see how this is relevant. SJDM may not be "numbered" as "Bulacan-5th" but in reality it is the 5th district in Bulacan. Same thing here for Dasma, only that it was given its own number. I'm neutral on keeping the Dasma district article but the Imus and Bacoor district articles have to be merged back. –Howard the Duck 02:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In a nutshell, in the Philippines, provinces and cities with a population of least 250,000 (and Metro Manila LGUs) are on equal footing, hence they are granted their own representation. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You'd make it appear then that the Lone districts of component cities of provinces are just sub-districts. I tend not to make a comparison between Philippine and US representations, it will make the analogy more complicated when it comes to the representations of independent cities, and they apportion districts in the US differently from us - thats why they're so fond of gerrymandering to gain a party following. In the US, representation is assigned by state and from that level it is then divided. It's a totally different scenario for us, we have our own Constitution which stipulates representation of 1 at least per province and 1 for a city which has attained the population requirement. Our Congress creates these legislative districts regardless these cities are component of a province or not. Hence once these city legislative districts are created, they are considered detached from the provincial representation, should the province's municipalities and cities which haven't attained the population requirement be redistricted, it cannot just re-attach (just in case its excess population could add another district) the Lone district of the city which used to belong under its representation because that would simply compromise the city charter which mostly provides the creation of these city legislative districts. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No basis for article. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Scorpion prinz. TheCoffee (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Unless expansion done with verifiable sources to cite notability. --TitanOne (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Important comment. I think no one has discussed the fundamental issue/guideline about when to group "related" legislative districts into one article and when to separate into discrete articles. This guideline, which was unilaterally implemented, but still unspoken, by Scorpion prinz is arbitrary and I personally have no opinion either way.
Notice that I surrounded the word related above in quotes. Legally, legislative districts are independent of each other and whether representatives collude with fellow provincemates on legislation is a completely unrelated issue.
Scorpion prinz, who created and maintained these sets of articles for the Philippines, has decided to simply go with how these legislative districts are legally named according to enabling laws, grouping those articles that have the same name save for the ordinal number (which just so happens to be more or less aligned with provinces). Thus, separate articles were created on even defunct districts simply because the names are different (e.g., Legislative district of Malabon-Navotas-Valenzuela, Legislative districts of Valenzuela City, Legislative district of Malabon City-Navotas City, and I presume Scorpion prinz will be creating two new articles for Malabon and Navotas after the 2010 elections).
The point of the paragraph above is that whether a district has a separate article or not (per Scorpion prinz' guideline) is simply based on the legal name and does not imply relationships to the mother province or not. So, if we were to follow Scorpion Prinz' guideline, then the Bacoor and Imus articles should be deleted/merged back to Cavite based on the legal evidence he presented. This decision does not make the statement on whether the city having its own district is a HUC, or a component city of a province, or if the city's representative is part of province's "delegation", whatever that is. (Unlike in the U.S. where states fight tooth-and-nail to get better representation for their states via the reapportionment scheme, here in the Philippines, modern congressmen are more or less independent and so I think the "province delegation" is a false concept.)
So now we have two questions:
- Does Scorpion prinz' unspoken guideline reflect consensus? It seems so since his preference for article organization has been unchallenged until these Imus and Bacoor articles came along.
- Regardless on whether Scorpion prinz' guideline has consensus or not, is the current article organization the best way to organize these legislative district topics? It's possible that each district has its own article, but that would make for a lot of redundancy. I guess this second question can be fit for a RFC later apart from this AfD.
Just my more than two centavos. --seav (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scorpion Prinz has done a mighty fine job with these Congressional district articles, and although no one owns articles, I'll weigh his opinions on the matter a little heavier than the others.
- However, I would always like to defer these things to how the laws define them; on how the legislative districts are named/divided, plus other related laws such as the HUC/ICC/component cities relationships. With that said, I'd merge these two back to the Cavite legislative district article, keep Dasmarinas where it is (or better yet, move that to Legislative district of Dasmariñas w/o the word "City". Although I've preferred Dasma also merged with Cavite but it's not that big of an issue and I can live with that. Just ditch the word "City". –Howard the Duck 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, if this is the equivalent of a UK parliamentary constituency or a US congressional district, which it appears to be. There would be no question of deleting such a British or American district so why should we treat the Philippines any differently? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is supposedly at Legislative districts of Cavite#3rd District, unless we'd create separate articles for each and every district. –Howard the Duck 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what we do for the UK and the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Philippines' case, they are grouped under provinces (see Legislative district of Abra, Legislative districts of Albay, etc.), when the law/constitution defines them as such. When they are not, they're on their own (see Legislative districts of Antipolo City). The question in this AFD is if these two districts should be like that of Antipolo where they should be separated from Legislative districts of Rizal. Currently, the law (RA 9727) gives Cavite 7 districts, the first and third are composed of only one municipality each. The question is if (in this case) the legally-named "3rd district of Cavite" be named here as the "Legislative district of Imus" and as separate from the Legislative districts of Cavite. –Howard the Duck 16:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If this will be kept, or separate articles would have to created for each and every congressional district, the question still remains, will this be at Cavite's 3rd legislative district or at Legislative district of Imus? If this will be merged back then even if separate articles will be made for each and every congressional district, they'll be a "<place> xth legislative district". –Howard the Duck 03:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's what we do for the UK and the US. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this is supposedly at Legislative districts of Cavite#3rd District, unless we'd create separate articles for each and every district. –Howard the Duck 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.