Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian Senate seating plan


 * 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. ST47 (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Senate seating plan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As pointed out in this discussion, this Canadian Senate seating plan is wholly out of date, with no indication it's being actively maintained other than minor wikilink corrections and semi-automated edits using AWB. I'm not proposing that it be deleted for failing WP:GNG, but rather it's highly duplicative to the SVG seating plan images maintained by et al. maintain (with a new image for each Parliament that opens). Secondarily, it's also kind of CRUFTy, per. Doug Mehus T · C  19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus  T · C  19:27, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it were properly and regularly maintained there might be an argument for keeping it, but the standings haven't been updated since May 2017— which is not only over two years ago, but a period of time when the Senate had major composition changes. In fact, the 50 most recent edits stretch into 2014, signifying this page has never received much attention from editors. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:56, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Don't think this is a notable topic even if it were maintained. The diagram in the main article and list of Senators is enough; not notable to note that McInnis sat next to McIntyre. Reywas92Talk 22:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , I was going to say it may not have standalone notability. And, the article is uncited, save for that reference you noted, which I have to admit I chuckled at. It was a laudable effort by the article's creator and I like the HTML aspect of it, but it would take a lot of work to maintain consistently. Doug Mehus T · C  22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of notability and maintenance. I honestly think the picture in the infobox of the Senate of Canada page is enough. - MikkelJSmith2 (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: This article would be okay, and it would be okay for it to include a graphic of the seating plan at some date in 2017, if it were about the "issue" of how seat assignment is done, what are the rules, who makes decisions, have their been controversies in the past, etc. assuming there was sourcing about that. Especially if there have been changes during history, about how seating has been done.  And maybe contrast vs. how seating is done in some other body.  QUESTION:  Is there any general article about seating plans in legislatures?  If so, this could possibly be redirected/merged with a small image of how it is done here. But, I agree we don't want a directory-type(?) article about just the immediately current assignment plan, requiring non-encyclopedic updating every 5 minutes, especially when the current info is available on a more reliable website.  QUESTION2: Does an article about the Canadian Senate include a link to the current seating plan's website? If not, maybe it should. --Doncram (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , On Q. #2, yes, I'd be supportive of linking to the current Senate seating plan, either via a footnote or reference would probably be best. On Q. #1, yeah, I think it's just a matter of...how many seating plans do we need? I get the idea in principle of having an HTML-based seating plan, but it's hard enough for us to keep up with the SVG version (which has been updating for us). Doug Mehus  T · C  22:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also there could possibly be an article about the issue of graphical representations of seating assignments in legislatures. This example of a seating plan in Minnesota is interestingly different.  No colors so distinctions between parties not clear, or at least does not jump out, surely by design.  Arranged photos, conveys other information through those.  --Doncram (talk) 21:22, 18 November 2019 (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.