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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland[edit]

List of Parliamentary constituencies in Cleveland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

It seems silly to me to list constituencies in an area that doesn't exist any more (Cleveland, England was abolished inthe 90s). I expect boundries have changed since the county anyway and that this is out of date. Computerjoe's talk 17:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Computerjoe's talk 18:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.Tyrenon (talk) 20:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge into the corresponding articles for County Durham and North Yorkshire. There are plenty of lists like this broken down by county, so the only question should be where this information best belongs. Cleveland is an unusual case. Normally when a county council ceases to exist, the county unequivocally remains, such as Tyne and Wear or greater Manchester. In the case of Cleveland, however, there was a lot of pressure to go back to North Yorkshire and County Durham. As a result a decision was made with areas north and south of the Tees being "associated" with the two counties, whatever that means. A further complication is that whilst most unitary authorities work together based on the old county boundaries, the four boroughs that made up Cleveland now also work with Darlington as "Tees Valley", in an area that has never fitted any known county. In short, it's a mess. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and a further complication is that Cleveland is still used by the Royal Mail when determining addresses. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it existed when the boundaries where drawn up for the 2005 general election, the same situation exists for Humberside with List of Parliamentary constituencies in Humberside. Obviously these things change over time and we cannot always impose today's state on the articles. Keith D (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleveland was abolished in the 1990s, Keith. Computerjoe's talk 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although the Boundary Commission, who are primarily responsible for redrawing constituency boundaries, still treat Cleveland as an area [1]. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the encyclopedia doesn't just document things exactly as they are today so I fail to see any good rationale to delete. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland has gone through so many reincarnations. Should we have an article of List of Parliamentary constituencies in Teesside and one for Stockton-on-Tees? Computerjoe's talk 16:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, a merge is also an alternative, which I would also support. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by creator of article copied from article talk page Keith D (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computerjoe's rationale for deletion (posted on my talk page as article creator) was:

Cleveland doesn't exist; why on earth is there an article on its parliamentary composition?
The reason this area is treated separately is that the Boundary Commission for England treated it separately from North Yorkshire and County Durham in the 2004/5 boundary review. Their web site lists this review as "Cleveland", although the detailed press releases refer to "the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees". I do not think there would be much enthusiasm for article titles like List of Parliamentary constituencies in the area covered by the unitary authorities of Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland, and Stockton-on-Tees. This is one of a set of short lists / articles covering the whole of England, see Category:Lists of UK Parliamentary constituencies in England, and if simply deleted would leave this area undescribed. The areas of the former counties of Avon and Humberside are treated the same way - Berkshire, Cheshire and Bedfordshire are slightly different as they are still ceremonial counties.
As to whether it should be "List of ..." or not, as mentioned by Martin Klein above, it seemed right as there is no actual information about the individual constituencies here, merely pointers to their own articles.--Keith Edkins ( Talk ) 08:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notability goes back in time to the beginning. The specific role of writing, & more specifically reference books like encyclopedias, is to preserve the notable things of the past as well as the present. It's true that our format lends itself particularly well, better than pre-electronic formats, to covering the present, but it needn't hurt our historical coverage either. I wish more people would do this sort of work here, there is room for as many articles as necessary--which, come to think of it, gives us the advantage for the past also. DGG (talk) 18:57, 4 June 2009 (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.