Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislative district of Bacoor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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) 03:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Legislative district of Bacoor (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 Bacoor is only referred to as the 2nd district of Cavite, thereby part of the representation of the province of Cavite. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 05:49, 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'ty 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) 10:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My options are the same with that found in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Legislative district of Imus. –Howard the Duck 14:42, 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) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I had pointed out, RA723 already took precedence. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer this question first: Is Dasmariñas as a legislative district separate from that of Cavite? Reyrefran (talk) 10:44, 6 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]
- 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) 03:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, when one enters Bacoor, a sign in Talaba (just opposite St. Dominic Hospital) declares: "Welcome to the LONE DISTRICT OF BACOOR (2nd District of Cavite)" and said sign is sponsored by the Municipal Government of Bacoor (Mayor Strike Revilla, Vice Mayor Rosette Miranda & council), Bong & Lani Revilla,and (conspicuously) Gibo Teodoro...
- So it seems that the Municipal Government of Bacoor calls it the Lone District of Bacoor.
- That said, the debate for deletion of the article may be over. Reyrefran (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We'd follow what the law says, not what the welcoming arch tells us. –Howard the Duck 17:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However why did the municipal officials of Bacoor release such tarp? They also know the law...Reyrefran (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Politicians know the law. They're the most frequent law breakers. :P –Howard the Duck 10:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A good example is the Caloocan City seal: in reality, the official name is simply "City of Caloocan" but Echiverri used "Makasaysayang Lungsod ng Caloocan". –Howard the Duck 10:29, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you present any legislation which identifies Bacoor/Imus as the lone legislative districts? Because legislation serves as reference? If you can then I'll rescind my opposition to this article. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is/are none. –Howard the Duck 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you present any legislation which identifies Bacoor/Imus as the lone legislative districts? Because legislation serves as reference? If you can then I'll rescind my opposition to this article. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However why did the municipal officials of Bacoor release such tarp? They also know the law...Reyrefran (talk) 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually want Reyrefran to answer it for me. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 22:51, 15 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) 01:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Oops. Sorry. –Howard the Duck 06:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems that Scorpion prinz is calling me out on this. I would be more than happy to take a snapshot of the said tarpo in Bacoor to shut your little trap. Reyrefran (talk) 10:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Are we really basing the law from that tarp? –Howard the Duck 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is the COMELEC's status on Cavite's districts:
- In COMELEC's provincial list of candidates, Cavite's 7 districts are numbered 1-7.\
- In COMELEC's municipal list of candidates, Cavite's municipalities don't have the representatives included with their municipal mayor and vice mayoral candidates. Even Dasma doesn't have them. Compare this situation to Cebu City's. –Howard the Duck 11:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That wasn't my question. A tarp won't make a difference, a COMELEC decision or a legislative enactment will convince me. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 02:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Media references (they already call it the lone district of Bacoor as well, so this is not misleading)
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- If we are to follow the literal sense as you'd insist, these media outfits should be saying "is running for Congress in the second district of Cavite", following such logic. Reyrefran (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- These unfortunately won't cut it. If it were COMELEC that said it, I would be swayed. –Howard the Duck 11:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No basis for the article. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Scorpion prinz. TheCoffee (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I left a long comment at the sister AfD --seav (talk) 03:51, 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) 19:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note -- this is discussed on the sister AFD. –Howard the Duck 16:53, 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.