Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 July 6.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 deleted under CSD#G5 per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/St. claires fire Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:INDISCRIMINATE listing of recent elections statistics from a U.S. state's House of Delegates district. The article has no clear inclusion criteria or meaningful prose, nor is there evidence of notability. - Mr X 18:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially similar:[reply]

Comment Wikipedia isn't really known for having prose-heavy constituency articles. Look at, say, California's 11th State Senate district. It has two sentences of prose and the rest is infoboxes, tables, navboxes, and categories. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps, but it's not clear what these article are about. If they are about the districts, then they should include information about the geographic boundaries, redistricting, constituency, demographics, and possibly a summary of voting stats over a large period of time. These articles seem to be solely about election stats of the past few years, in which case they should be titled 2016-2107 election statistics for Virginia's NNrd House of Delegates district. They would also need to have sources that specifically discuss each district's elections for that specific time frame. With the current titles, they should look more like this: Virginia's 32nd House of Delegates district.- Mr X 22:25, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. It's accepted that constituencies for second tier jurisdictions are notable, which is why we have full sets of articles on such constituencies from second tier jurisdictions all around the world, e.g. Scotland, Ontario, New South Wales, Punjab etc etc. These need more work, but they're a reasonable starting point. Having said, that Mister Ernest Thayer's attitude is somewhat disappointing. Number 57 21:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't necessarily know where to find all the sources of information that would be needed to finish the articles. Also, I don't know how to create maps. Mister Ernest Thayer (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all Additional information should be added, bt this is a suitable basis. some information is best expressed in list or table format, even in an encyclopedia . DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per precedent and coverage on these districts. Articles do need work though.--Mojo Hand (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as they are clearly notable per precedent. AFD is not cleanup. Smartyllama (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comment there has been a further development. They're to be deleted per G5.Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2017 (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.