Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Governors of Delaware (alphabetic)


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Governors of Delaware (alphabetic)

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

This is a fork of List of Governors of Delaware; it offers no more information, and duplicates both the data on that article, and the sorting supplied by the category Category:Governors of Delaware. And it is completely unlinked to. Golbez (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Redirect. If an alphabetical list is what's required, just reformat the table on List of Governors of Delaware to a sortable table and be done with it. (It isn't as easy as I thought because of the colors included and blanks etc, but easier than maintaining two exactly same lists). -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We could work around the colors; the main barrier is the governors that have more than one Lt. Gov, since the resort mechanism is not yet smart enough to be able to sort around rowspans. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And a redirect would have no point; this is unlinked in the mainspace. --Golbez (talk) 02:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see a need for alphabetical, but it's way better having a workaround on the table than another page that says the exact same thing. As for a redirect, I don't see a point, but I don't think it does any harm. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something harmless let useless still has no reason to be here. --Golbez (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions.  -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 02:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's redundant. Taking the same info already in a list and putting it in a different order doesn't make a new list. It's still the same info in the old list. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. While it used to be common before sortable tables came into being, Wikipedia now simply doesn't ever need to have two separate articles that provide the same list in a different sort order. Bearcat (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to a sorting table. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant; we have the technology to rebuild the main list with this option. JJL (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not in its current state; sorttable still breaks when there are rowspans. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This editor seems intent on treating Wikipedia like a paper encyclopedia, providing myriad versions of the same article simply to provide a different sort/format method. This is the same reason he created multiple (now deleted) forks to the various ordinal United States Congress articles. The community halted his actions there, so now he's focusing on editing all Delaware articles in his own image.DCmacnut &lt; &gt; 02:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — another well-intentioned article from this editor who means well, but this doesn't work in WP's policy.—Markles 21:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP - Pending a real solution or alternative to the access question too few well intentioned editors are clearly thinking through the points being made. Is it possible for the "community" (aren't I a part?) to take a deep breath and give this matter some thought. Bearcat's approach seems OK to me, I just don't know how to do it. stilltim (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, given that it's a list of governors rather than a list of administrations, I wonder why the main list even needs the "Lieutenant Governors" column anyway. Removing it would solve the "multiple rowspans" problem. Alternatively, if the column is needed, there's not really a particularly compelling reason why each lieutenant governor needs a separate row — if a governor had more than one LG, can't there just be one row with  line breaks between each entry, instead of starting a new row and then rowspanning the governors? And is there even really a reason why we absolutely must have the list itself made available in an alphabetical format, when if somebody really needs an alphabetical list they can just click on the category anyway? Bearcat (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bearcat. No, the Lieutenant Governors is not needed, its not even on it now, and yes there is another list needed beyond the category because the category does not carry all the needed data. Thanks for you help. stilltim (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Tell me, what use does an alphabetized list have? You keep saying we need it; you've never stated why. --Golbez (talk) 16:42, 30 June 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.