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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul (electoral districts)[edit]

İstanbul (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

Ankara (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

İzmir (electoral districts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

After an RM, aiming at expanding the subjects' scopes, was closed without consensus, I'm nominating these three articles for deletion on the basis that there's no need for an overview article about two resp. three electoral districts each. Still convinced we should have a more general article about Politics of Istanbul, Politics of Ankara and Politics of Izmir instead, I'm however asking the closing admin to please move the articles to my userspace or to the userspace of the articles' creator Nub Cake, so they can be re-created (or moved back into articlespace) under the new title. --PanchoS (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this proposal. There is absolutely no advantage or need to deleting these articles whatsoever. The importance of having an overview articles is reflected in several reasons, not least by the fact that a few elections ago these were single electoral districts. Historical electoral districts and constituencies have articles on Wikipedia, so by this reason alone these articles should be kept. Furthermore, they serve as a good overview over all the sub-districts within their boundaries. Finally, for presidential elections, these are still electoral districts and are not split into two or three. Therefore, I don't see any logical reason to deleting these articles and am kind of at loss as to why they were nominated in the first place. Nub Cake (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historical districts are kept, but this doesn't mean we should have yet another layer of overview article for every split district. Otherwise we'd have to create another overview article on Bolu and Düzce (electoral districts) which IMO were only split in 1999, and many others. Your second argument also doesn't hold water. The proposed Politics of Istanbul (or Politics of Istanbul Province) article would easily hold general information about the different constituencies and links to the detail articles on the respective constituencies (legislative I, II and III, and presidential).
Actually, I simply don't get your point, but wait – I only going through the pain of nominating these in order to preserve the edit histories of your articles. Am I stupid to care? I could also say: to hell with it, and go ahead with copying the stuff I can use over to a new article Politics of Istanbul. A nice {{Copied}} badge on the Talk page, and there we are, problem solved. --PanchoS (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you are incorrect about Bolu and Düzce. Düzce was indeed split in 1999, but it wasn't a case of one electoral district being abolished and two new electoral districts replacing it. It was one electoral district (Bolu) having its boundaries changed and one new electoral district being formed. Therefore, there is no 'historical constituency' here. Also, you are again not putting any arguments forward as to why you feel having overview articles is 'useless' in your view. They are not useless. They hold information about the boundaries of the sub-districts, election results of the all three sub-districts combined (which is far more important in the eyes of most of the electorate) and provide a good navigation tool for locating the individual sub-districts. You've failed to provide a single reason as to why these articles should be deleted, apart from apparently 'clearing the way' for a little project of yours concerning the establishment of 'Politics of X' articles. Tell me: how and in what way do these articles stop you from creating these articles anyway? An electoral district, historical or not, is entirely different from an article concerning the politics of a province. One holds geographical information used by the electoral commission to organise elections, the other details the political leanings of the province. As I said, there is absolutely no advantage or need to deleting these articles whatsoever, and your failure to provide a single argument to the contrary is a proof of this. Also, in regards to your accusations that I am only against deletion because I'm somehow being protective of articles I wrote... I only feel that this accusation only shows more clearly that this deletion request bears no rational or legitimate reasoning for it. Nub Cake (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nub Cake: The difference between the two cases seems small. Area and population of pre-1999 Düzce constituency and (the combination of) post-1999 Bolu and Düzce constituencies remained roughly the same, didn't they? "Clearing the way for a little project of yours" is partly true, but still funny, as having a consistent "Politics of x" article scheme for countries and first-level subdivisions is not exactly my personal obsession, but a longstanding convention here.
re "accusations of protectiveness": I can't see where I accused you of anything here, though. I actually invited you to join me in turning your articles into something that IMO is far more useful and would still be based on your work.
Main argument again: an overview article aimed at covering just two electoral districts (in the cases of Ankara and Izmir) seems disproportionate, particularly given that much more relevant overview articles following our "Politics of" and "Elections in" conventions are missing for these provinces. I'm not willing to invest more energy in this useless battle though, so may the articles be kept at Electoral districts of Ankara etc., to at least cover electoral districts at all electoral levels. --PanchoS (talk) 09:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the two cases are huge. Bolu was and still is an electoral district. 'Bolu and Duzce' was never an electoral district. You are correct that 'Politics in X' articles are missing from the main Turkish cities but again you're not stating why these electoral constituency articles are stopping you from creating them. If you go to the Istanbul#Politics section, you'll find that it is incredibly different from the election constituency articles. Therefore I still don't see the reason why you've gone after a completely unrelated series of articles that concentrate on something governmental and structural rather than analytical. Renaming these articles to 'Electoral districts of X' is definitely a much better idea than deleting them altogether. Nub Cake (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to see if there's an analogous article about federal districts in Canada's provinces and the closest I've found is List of Ontario federal electoral districts, which of course is quite a different thing. Anyway, it would be great to have a Politics of Istanbul Province main article but of course there's no deadline here. I was leaning towards keep, with the federal electoral make up of each province seeming notable to me. But the fact that it's considered a single unsplit entity for the ever-more-important/all-too-important presidential vote in Turkey makes this a slam dunk, for me. Keep. Now, maybe then the article order should be flipped, with the integrated presidential results first? But that's not a matter for Afd... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, trying to think, what would be the U.S. equivalent for this? Because of the presidential angle, it would be something like United States presidential election in Alabama, 2012 + United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2012 (which in this case groups 7 districts) -- with the added factor that the Turkish article covers more than one election cycle. Again, I don't see why deleting this would help to build the encyclopedia. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Shawn in Montreal: Noone wants the content to go. Point is however that the article scope is synthetic and rather useless as an overview for two or three constituencies that are no different from any other constituencies in the country. Therefore the scope would be much better expanded into Politics of Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir province. However the RM failed, and copypasting the content into new Politics of Ankara, Istanbul and Izmir province articles, thereby losing the page history, wouldn't be good practice. Therefore, as explained above, I propose temporary userfication to be immediately moved back into articlespace under the expanded scope. --PanchoS (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I kinda made a decision to avoid looking at the RM. Guess I'll have to. But I'll ask again: is it correct that at the presidential level, a province votes as a single entity? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • the reason why I ask is that as a first-level administrative country subdivision, each province may well merit its own article on electoral results, akin to the US federal elections-by-state example I cited above. I honestly don't think SYNTH applies here. Turkish provinces exist as real and distinct entities. As for them being "no different from any other constituencies in the country," I see that there are 81 Provinces of Turkey and yes I suppose we could have 81 such articles, if someone wants to create them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:51, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have articles on the individual constituencies for these provinces (e.g. Ankara (1st electoral district) and Ankara (2nd electoral district)) so I think these articles are completely pointless. Separate articles can be created on the historic constituencies under names like İstanbul (electoral district) but the current articles do not contain any information on them. Number 57 11:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well these articles with tables and maps are serious sources for the researchers. Why don’t we keep them ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Few cities have electoral distircts in Turkey. These districts have significant impact on elections. Notable enough to be an article. Encyclopedic information is vital at this point. Researchers may inform themselves about this different situation.--Kafkasmurat (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to relist: This deletion request is unlikely to attract any more debate or reach a form of consensus. The user who nominated the pages for deletion has failed to state a clear reason for making this request, and the articles in question are both rich in original content and in compliance with WP:N and does not fulfil any of the criteria listed on WP:DELETE. The nominating user has him/herself stated that the primary reason for launching this request was to 'make way' for new 'Politics of X' articles, but has failed to state how these constituency articles are an obstacle to their creation. I therefore propose that this pretty much baseless deletion request be closed. Nub Cake (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2016 (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.