The result was keep. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 I expect boundries have changed since the county anyway and that this is out of date.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]
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)