Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/84th United States Congress - membership changes


 * 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 speedy delete (G6)  by R'n'B. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 20:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

84th United States Congress - membership changes

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Fork of 84th United States Congress. Should be included in the one article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The different nature of the content and its presentation results in the significant awkwardness/impossibility in having a single article. stilltim (talk) 00:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Delete A single article would work, but you are so insistent that your way is the only way, that our only solution left is to delete. You simply won't work with the rest of us to achieve consensus on a single article.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 01:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Where is the main dispute being played out? Is there a central discussion? There is a whole category of article, so the decision on one will affect many or all of those articles. There are signs of ownership by Stilltim, but deletion doesn't seem the answer to this content dispute. Have you tried any form of dispute resolution before going to AfD? Why not merge the two tables into the main article, as they are in essence the entirety of the article. Fences and windows (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Myself and other editors have had numerous queries with the editor on his talk page. Not sure if dispute resolution would work in this case. His response to the majority of questioning is to "wait and see what I'm doing, because I don't like they way the current article is written, and my way is better." Most of these articles have been merged into the main one, but the editor does not want that to happen. Rather than taking up the discussion at the main article or the project page, he continues to maintain these redundant articles. See his comment at Articles_for_deletion/37th_United_States_Congress_-_summary, where he blames other editors for the dispute, saying that he has resorted to creating new articles to "fix" some problem he sees with the changes to the main article, rather than trying to constructively work with us on a solution. He simply feels he owns the format, and doesn't want anyone reverting his edits, even though the current format was developed through consensus at WP:USC. This all started when he began creating duplicate articles like 50th United States Congress - summary which use his preferred formating, which he views as the only proper format. These articles provide the same information, and add nothing new and distinct to Wikipedia that isn't already provided on the main article. He simply feels that all of this information should be provided in separate articles, instead of one, even though the articles are of equal length, generally, and again add nothing new. After being asked repeatedly to stop creating duplicate articles like his "Xth Congress - summary" forks, Afds on those forms have begun, and are now extended to these pre-existing forks, which by and large have already been merged into the main article. Out of some respect for the editor, they have not been speedy deleted, even though the probably qualify because the information is provided elsewhere. 'm not sure creating multiple AFDs is the answer, but I support that effort.DCmacnut &lt; &gt;  02:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it would be appropriate for you to create an RFC so that there is a more centralized discussion on this. More third party input on the situation may help convince him that this plan is inappropriate. Gigs (talk) 03:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't begin the Afd effort, and don't really have the time or energy to go to RFC. I'll leave that to other editors to propose. It would have to be an RFC on the editors conduct, since an rRFC on content would get us nowhere. The editor is adamant that his way is the only proper way, and appears no longer open to discussions on other alternatives. I'm afraid he can't be convinced, since his comments to date indicate that only he has the expertise and knowlege to properly manage these articles, and other editors simply don't "understand" enough to do things the right (his) way.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 03:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment/Stilltim Gigs (talk) 04:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete this and all similar articles. A content dispute is no reason for forking. And someone should get on that RFC... hundreds of AfDs serve no purpose and don't seem to be discouraging the forking that this editor is engaged in. -- Kinu t /c  03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this & and all similar articles. Good summary articles for the key political changes of the period at a national level. DGG (talk) 08:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep would be ok if the article wasn't the same as the 84th United States Congress article with some wording changes.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete G6 (Housekeeping) as per Articles for deletion/46th United States Congress - summary. So tagged. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 18:37, 14 May 2009 (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.