Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXX

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 all as duplicates of 109th United States Congress. El_C 07:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U.S. Congressional Delegation from XXX

• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Alabama
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Alaska
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from American Samoa
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Arizona
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Arkansas
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from California
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Colorado
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Connecticut
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Delaware
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from the District of Columbia
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Florida
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Georgia
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Hawaii
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Idaho
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Illinois
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Indiana
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Iowa
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Kansas
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Kentucky
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Louisiana
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Maine
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Maryland
• United States Congressional Delegation from Massachusetts
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Massachusetts (Redirect)
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Michigan
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Minnesota
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Mississippi
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Missouri
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Montana
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Nebraska
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Nevada
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from New Hampshire
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from New Jersey
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from New Mexico
• United States Congressional Delegation from New York
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from New York (Redirect)
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from North Carolina
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from North Dakota
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Ohio
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Oklahoma
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Oregon
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Pennsylvania
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Puerto Rico
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Rhode Island
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from South Carolina
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from South Dakota
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Tennessee
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Texas
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Utah
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Vermont
• United States Congressional Delegation from United States Virgin Islands
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from U.S. Virgin Islands (Redirect)
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Virginia
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Washington
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from West Virginia
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Wisconsin
• U.S. Congressional Delegation from Wyoming

All of these are duplicates of the articles listed in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state. The ones in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state are large, detailed articles, includeing history of the delegations. The ones listed above are all little better than stubs. They basically each include a template detailing the state's current delegation, and little else. Some of the big articles use these templates, some do not. I plan to add the templates to those that do not yet use it. - TexasAndroid 20:28, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Support. These articles are just unnecessary. The templates they transclude, however, are very useful.—Markles 21:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It is my intention that, before the end of this AFD, to have merged each of the templates onto the bottom of the large article for the same state, assuming it is not already there. From a random sampling, some already are there. - TexasAndroid 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

• Move the templates, and redirect ('nuff said) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 10:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete for North Dakota article - useless duplicate of {{ND-FedRep}}. --AlexWCovington (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete them all under A3. --Peta 06:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - In the Project Congress article scheme, I understood the scope of the AfD articles to be the current delegation and the articles in Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state to be the historic delegation articles. It's true that the historic delegation articles are indeed large and detailed -- and that is my fear: they are already too big and could not adequately absorb additional information that focuses solely on the current delegation. When the current delegation information is developed, it will most likely have to be split out into a separate article anyway. On the other hand, Project Congress has expended alot of effort to standardize and conventionalize article names for each state and territory and be comprehensive for each and every state or territory. Since the article names in this AfD series of articles don't fully comply, it may be best to delete all of them and then, when we are ready to expand the 'current delegation' information, we can start over.--G1076 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - If this AfD succeeds, this template (Template:Current congressional delegation article) should be considered for deletion--G1076 17:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect -- What is the actual reason to delete these? If they're duplicates, then merge and redirect. These article have many incoming links. Let's all try to pay more attention, please. –RHolton≡– 18:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Note that the many incoming links to these AfD articles are as a result TL:XX-FedRep that appears on all those articles--and therefore is not as big a problem as it first appears to be.--G1076 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• These may go but definitely keep template for use on individual congresspeople's pages. Redirect all to a central point? - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I would say redirect each to the larger article under Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state. So yeah, as the original submitter, Merge/Redirect is acceptable to me. As for the template, IMHO that would have to go through a separate WP:TFD, rather than being deleted by this article AFD. Finally, as for the merge, I did about 1/3 of the pages last week, and am hopeing to get back to doing more today. - TexasAndroid 13:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the templeates TL:XXX-FedRep will remain and be merged into the existing articles Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state. The template (Template:Current congressional delegation article) should go through a separate WP:TFD following the close of this AfD.

Suggestion: if a merge is decided upon, I would agree that the AfD articles should point to the Category:United States Congressional Delegations by state; however, I would suggest that a comment line be added to the redirect page to alert/direct would be editors to Wikipedia:WikiProject:U.S. Congress/Congressional delegations, a standard/boilerplate page that will be developed by WP:USC.--G1076 14:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep : This page list only the "current" members of congress. This is a very relevant piece of information. If a person is interested in finding this the only other resort he/she has is to go to the page with list of congressmen from the last 200 or so years and scroll through the pages looking for the details. Also, I believe this page is a frequently used and linked page from other websites. If you search for say, 'U.S. Congressional delegation from Arkansas' in goggle [1] this would be the first page to show up. This attests to the importance of this page. I would definitely vote to keep this page.

• Comment - interesting. However, I don't think that these results reflect the importance of the article rather it is caused by a combination of Google's bias towards WP and the effect of an uncommon search term fitting exactly the article title. BlueValour 21:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC) --DuKot 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Keep or Merge: These pages allow to hop conveniently from say, a senator's page, to the delegation list of another state. This is particularly helpful if you are interested in identifying a member of Congress. If you do not know a Congressman in question, these pages let you easily identify him or her. Because of its inherent convenience, these pages should remain on Wikipedia Another option is to merge all of these pages into one, but keeping the same template which appears on Congressmen's pages currently. Porvida 22:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Isn't it a little risky to keep a page that says "current" but not the year? What if once the year roles over somebody forgets to update it? I think if would be easier to just merge it with the other years that state the date, then people don't have to worry about whether the page is actually up-to-date or not. I don't think it's too difficult to scroll through, and also you can see if the past history of the delegation. If it gets too unwieldly perhaps the pages can be broken down into half-centuries. --134.174.21.2 23:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment In the past these templates / pages get updated within minutes of changes in congressmen / senators. This has happened when people like Duke Cunningham and Mark Foley resigned. Lots of editors are actively keeping track of these pages. So I do not see any risk in these pages going out of date. Also, if you think that way any page in wikipedia could go out of date. For example if you say ABC is the current governor of XYZ. The day somebody else is elected this statement becomes outdated. DuKot----
• Okay, there's basically no satisfactory way to close this at this point, no one is willing to touch it. Personally, unless I'm missing something here, I think this should be relisted to get more input. I'll do that today if no one objects. --W.marsh 15:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all - this is a case where the categories do a way better job. Not only to they provide the same information as do the templates, they provide chronology and history. A concern expressed above is that you have to scoll through 200 years of history to establish the current incumbents. This can be dealt with, if it is considered to be a pivotal problem, by putting the categories in descending order. BlueValour 21:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 13:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all but keep the templates. The articles are useless by themselves. MER-C 13:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This may be the first time I've ever written this phrase, but wouldn't these work better as lists? It seems odd to just have the templates making up an entire article. But if it were a list of the current delegations, I'd think that it would be useful enough (and much easier to read). ScottW 18:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all, keeping templates. --Storkk 13:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect Okay, who wants to merge to all these to the appropriate articles, raise their hand. --Neo 05:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment late hours merge suggestion: what if we made one article List of current United States Congressional delegations and performed the merge into e.g. List of current United States Congressional delegations#Alaska ? Even if we merge them into the historical delegations articles, wouldn't it stand to reason that most readers would want the current list before the historical one, so burying it at the bottom wouold be less helpful? --Dhartung | Talk 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep It's incredibly difficult to find the delegates from the territories and from the Puerto Rican commonwealth otherwise. Artsygeek 22:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I found finding the territories' and Puerto Rican delegations quite easy -> 109th United States Congress --Marriedtofilm 01:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge info to individual state articles, unless anyone can find anything notable or newsworthy about a specific delegation as a whole, i.e.: "This delegation is known for speaking only in Swedish and their only goal is to merge the US with Paraguay." --Marriedtofilm 23:56, 12 October 2006 (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.