Talk:Model Congress

Model United States Senate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 28 November 2017 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Model Congress. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Youth model government (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Youth model government, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Youth model governmentWikipedia:WikiProject Youth model governmentTemplate:WikiProject Youth model governmentYouth model government articles

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Youth Legislative Assembly[edit]

I have added info about this program because the page for this program was made into a redirect to the model congress page by the administator who ruled delete. Since there is a redirect to this page from Youth Legislative Assembly there should be some mention of the program otherwise people may get confused when researching YLA. Acidskater 02:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online Model Congress[edit]

I remember once stumbling upon a sort of online role-play model congress. It seemed quite large and a rather complex simulation of the work in the Senate and the House of Representatives. Unfortunately, I've forgotten the name of this site and even the last half-hour of using google and wikipedia's own search was without success. Not only that I think this could be included in this article, I would also like to return to go to the article of this online model congress and maybe take part in it. I really hope someone knows, what I mean. --DocBrown (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online Congress[edit]

Given that user Eeeeeeeeeee1235629 reverted my deletion of the "Online" section without any comment (see here), I am creating this section to reach consensus on whether inclusion of this content is justified or not. The external links and inclusion of Discord chat rooms violates basic WP principles, such as WP:ELNO. There is no substantive, independent, third-party discussion or mention of "ModelUSGov" in any mainstream media (aside from one article that mentions it in passing, without consideration to its "Model Congress" elements). Given its obvious non-notability -- and the history of users with only 1 edit or so adding content that borders on self-promotional for these communities -- I think it should be removed. The other communities mentioned have even less independent coverage. I will revert the reversion - until consensus is reached, I think we should not include any of this content. Indicia of solemnity (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The section has been there for a while now, and you are yourself a new user who just created their account. I removed the link to Discord in the citations since that addition is clearly advertising. It's relevance is no different that the other referenced made in the article. I think you should stop removing existing content, and it be reverted to it's original form before edits by both yourself and Eeeeeeeeeee1235629. SpaceDude21 (talk) 23:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My 'being new' is irrelevant. I only bring it up to highlight that most of the content's inclusion is likely self-promotional, since only relatively inactive users bring its inclusion. The other content in this article is clearly significant and covered in independent, third-party sources -- take, for example, the various sources in the first paragraph of the High School section. Wikipedia is not for including any community that may or may not be related to any subject matter - it is an encyclopedia. Inclusion of content should not be trivial (as in, just random facts), self-promotional, or irrelevant. Also, the section being included in the article for a long time does not mean anything - many non-notable and irrelevant things have been included on low-traffic pages like these. None of what you have said is a real argument in favor of its inclusion, other than (pretty much) WP:ILIKEIT. (Also, I am not sure whether the other user is engaging in good faith, since they are reverting my edits without any comment or discussion here.) Indicia of solemnity (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]