Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Massachusetts Senate Delegations

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 Keep --JForget 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Massachusetts Senate Delegations

Massachusetts Senate Delegations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete per WP:NOT#DIR. Also, the table is completely unwieldy and fairly unreadable and is filled with redlinks. After Midnight 0001 03:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Oppose/keep: There are tables with similar content at the federal level. I agree that the table is terribly unwieldly and unreadable. However, the data could be better composed and thereby retain the article in a different format.—Markles 04:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Information is notable, verifiable, and useful...just not well-organized visually. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorta keep The info seems proper, but it would be nice if someone with more skills then me could put it into a more screen friendly format.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Per Dhartung if that's how the table looks typically, i don't want to encourage a reckless reformat.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep We have these lists for US House and Senate seats, so it seems useful to have them at the state level, too. It's a useful way to organize encyclopedia articles... you can learn about the political history of a state by seeing who was in office and when. No need to delete stuff just to save space, we have plenty of kilobytes. --W.marsh 05:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Of course this is a directory -- to properly notable Wikipedia articles. The redlinks need to be turned blue, that's all (all of them pass WP:BIO automatically). The table is unwieldy but follows the format of the state-by-state congressional tables. Compare United_States_Congressional_Delegations_from_California#1933_-_present for the largest example. I'm not happy with the side-scrolling but I think it makes more sense than breaking it up. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:NOT#DIR isn't as persuasive when the article in question is a notable set of notable individuals. Maxamegalon2000 06:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Dhartung Xdenizen (talk) 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per above; usually graphical depiction of who served where and when. Lankiveil (talk) 07:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC).
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep AFD isn't cleanup. Perfectly legitimate list. LaMenta3 (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
    • On a side note, I think that the format of the table is quite ingenious and perfectly easy to read. The only problem is that it scrolls to the side of the screen quite badly. Perhaps if the X and Y axes of the table were swapped and multiple tables were made along somewhat arbitrary temporal divisions, then that might fix that problem. Just a thought... LaMenta3 (talk) 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
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.