Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Floor (legislative)


 * 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   merge to Legislative floor procedure. Spartaz Humbug! 05:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Floor (legislative)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There is no indication that this article could become more than a dictionary definition. Another editor's prod was removed, so I am nominating. ALXVA (talk) 20:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:NAD. I can't see this becoming anything more than a dictionary definition either. Claritas § 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep My first impression was that it was an unnecessary addition to Template:Parliamentary Procedure, that it was covered somewhere else already, and that it had no potential for expansion.  However, I think my first impression was wrong on all three counts.  Granted, it's not much: "The floor of a legislature or chamber is the place where members sit and make speeches. When a person is speaking there formally, they are said to have the floor."  On the other hand, the rules set by a parliamentary body to govern the legislator's right to speak to the assemblage-- i.e., such as the amount of time that a speaker is allowed to have the floor don't seem to be addressed anywhere.  In that regard, there is much that can be said-- speakers are allotted an amount of time on the floor, sometimes they yield that time to other speakers, sometimes they are directed to yield, etc.  I think that User:Freakshownerd is on to something here.  Mandsford 20:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Isn't what you've just described just parliamentary procdure -- what happens on the "Floor"? Since what happens on the Floor is often spoken into a microphone, should we also have a "Microphone (legislative)" article? I'm kidding of course, but so far as I can see, any way to extend this article would make it into something other than an article covering a legislative body's floor. It would necessarily trun into rules of debate or the like. ALXVA (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Extremely notable and historic subject. Very relavent to an understanding of governmental and parliamentary (so to speak) process. The article is useful in its present form and can be greatly expanded with information from sources such as this one http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm and http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/95-563.pdf covering details of how the respective legislative floors are used and governed. While an expansion of that sort would make it even better, at least our readers are informed by the present article about what is meant generally by the term "floor" as its used in this context. Deleting this subject entirely would only promote ignorance. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment There are already articles about "how the respective legislative floors are used and governed". I would not won't to promote ignorance, so why not just expand (if need be), the Wiktionary definition? ALXVA (talk) 21:16, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would expect that there would be an existing article on the subject, but I can't find it, at least not among anything in the template. Of the articles that you've seen, which of them seems to best cover the topic?  This may simply be a matter of having the article creator contribute to an existing article.  Mandsford 21:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Depending on what aspect, it could be any of the articles about motions. More specific to the Floor, see In order when another has the floor (though this article could probably use a better title). ALXVA (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's an excellent find. That poorly titled article that doesn't provide clear context (I assume it's a discussion of British parliamentary floor procedure?) could quite usefully be merged into this article on the broader subject. Sections on the "floor" rules in various legislatures would be quite edifying for anyone interested in the subject. Freakshownerd (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no indication that this is a dictionary article - no etymology or the like. Removal of a prod is the occasion for discussion at the article's talk page, not a stubborn escalation to AFD. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, removal of a proposed deletion should be accompanied by an edit summary and a explanation on the talk page. "Escalation" to AFD is the normal procedure when such is not given. Claritas § 09:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, WP:BRD describes the process when a bold edit such as a prod is made. The onus is on the bold editor to start discussion when their edit is reverted.  In this case, the prod was just accompanied by a vague wave and the article's talk page has yet to be used.  Colonel Warden (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Kudos to ALXVA for finding the article In order when another has the floor, and to Freakshownerd for identifying a lack within Template:Parliamentary Procedure of any reference to that aspect of procedure. What I see as the solution now is (a) combining the two articles, with this one conforming to the structure of "i.o.w.a.h.t.f."; (b) coming up with a different name than the seven word "i.o.w.a.h.t.f.", perhaps using the words "motion" and "floor"; and (c) adding the merged article into the template, either under "motions" or "concepts" (I'd prefer the former).  Had this been discussed on a talk page rather than here, I would not have been aware that there was a problem, and I'd say that goes for most of us.  I'd add that, overall, the atmosphere in an AfD is actually more civil than what would find on a talk page and that solutions are more often found to conflicts here.  Mandsford 12:30, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This sounds like a great idea. Would "Legislative floor procedure" or "Floor procedure (deliberative body)" or something like that work for the new/merged article? ALXVA (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those are both good, I'd go with the first; I'm moving "In order when..." to the new title, changing vote to Merge to Legislative floor procedure (it could just as easily been the other way, with the title of this article renamed and the other one merged to it, but either way, it's a good addition to the project on parliamentary procedure. Mandsford 20:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an advantage to an article on "Legislative floor procedure" as opposed to an article on "floor (legislative)" that covers the procedures? It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me as long as there are redirects, but I do tend to favor simplicity where possible. Freakshownerd (talk) 01:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there is an advantage. The concept is really a procedural/metaphorical one, not a physical one, which is why it can be more than a definition this way. The "floor" only seems to matter because of the procedure and any mention of the actual physical place is best in an article about the procedure, not the other way around. I do wish there was a way to work "motion" into the title per Mandsford, but I couldn't think of a way without approaching a long name like IOWAHTF was. I guess reference to procedure covers it anyway. So, if it is not obvious, I change my !vote to Merge, though I won't withdraw the nomination so somebody else can declare this the consensus if it in fact is the consensus. ALXVA (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2010 (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.