Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Representatives from Minnesota


 * 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 Redirect - any extra infomation will be in the history.. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 21:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

List of United States Representatives from Minnesota

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

Information is duplicated in United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota which is complete Appraiser 22:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per above. Newyorkbrad 23:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per it being redundant.--Tainter 23:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota. Might as well put up signposts where we know people have treaded. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Sjakkalle's well-spoken rationale. -- Kicking222 13:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking at what links here in preparation for a "merge and redirect", which seems to be the best solution. There are a number of templates that use this format of article title, e.g. Template:USRepSuccessionBox.  So, United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota should be renamed List of United States Representatives from Minnesota and all occurrences of United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota should be changed.  Once the admin approves this solution, I can do it with AWB fairly easily.--Appraiser 17:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose because there are 49 other "List of United States Representatives from Foo" articles out there with different information from "[United States Congressional Delegations from Foo". See, for example, List of United States Representatives from Massachusetts.  These articles list hometowns and reasons for their leaving office.  Also, those lists are in alphabetical order.—Markles
 * Strong Keep, Oppose Deletion - The information presented on the list page presents the information in an alphabetical order with additional notes which the delegations page does not allow. Both pages present similar information, but the manner of presentation and differences in detail require that they both be kept withOUT a merge. --Daysleeper47 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose, Strong Keep - These articles are here for a reason. While most of them are at the moment woefully inadequate, this one in particular is very well organized.  The hope is that the rest of the Representative lists will be completed in the not-too-distant future, but the fact remains that these articles serve a purpose.  This is not redundant at all - this shows information on these representatives, as opposed to a graphic representation of when they all served. Valadius 21:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently the only additional information for each Rep. is the exact dates of service. "District Home" has no meaning that I'm aware of (districts have no "seat cities").  As for being alphabetical, I can't see much advantage.  Browsers have search features that obviate that need.--Appraiser 22:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "District Home" means the Representative's hometown in the district. For example, see one of the congressional district articles, such as Massachusetts's 3rd congressional district.  In it, Jim McGovern's district home is Worcester, Massachusetts.  Back in the 1880's, the Reps from that district were from Boston, which helps indicate where the district was located at the time.


 * Oppose, Keep for Now. This list is well organized and took some effort, but it is somewhat repetitive. Components of this list can be folded into others.     A larger discussion should take place regarding all delegations to eliminate repetitiveness wherever possible, and what lists link to what articles to begin to get some uniformity going.   I'm for keeping this list until that happens.  As Valadius states above, many lists are woefully inadequate, and we shouldn't be discouraging initiative.  As Markles states above, there are 49 other state lists.  They should be taken up en masse rather than singling out a particular state, or at least start eliminating ones that haven't been worked on in a while and are incomplete.   On the plus side of deletion, by all of us working on less list types, we may get more work done if we agree to some type of format.  The problem lies with policing and agreeing to which lists make sense.Pmeleski 23:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to Pmeleski, the discussion and the agreement on the format has been completed and resolved at Project Congress, and hence we have the format for the list of reps and list of senators from Foo articles distinct from the Cong Delegation from Foo article. Lots of dedicated Wikipedians have done amazing work on the entirety of Project Congress--and all Project participants invite your participation to further improve these articles — in the context of the larger project.--G1076 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stop using AWB to change links in other articles from "List of…" to "U.S. Cong Delegs from…." You're calling it "cleaning up" but it's not cleaning up, it's making a policy change without consensus, and I don't know how to use AWB to change it back.—Markles 01:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many articles link to List of United States Representatives from Minnesota because of the templates that are used across all 50 states. There's no practical way to change which article they link to as long as there is no consensus to merge, rename, or delete the article (as it now seems is the case).  However, a few articles explicitly linked here, which I was able to change to link to United States Congressional Delegations from Minnesota.  Whenever the "List" article is completed, I wouldn't mind linking the articles here again, but right now only 24 of the ~140 representatives are on the List and the "Delegations" article has all 140 representatives with links to each of their own articles (which several of us worked on completing).  I see no reason to deny the reader the link to the much more complete article, when we have the option.  You reverted one of the 1/2 dozen or so articles that I changed, but regardless of the outcome of the "merge" discussion, I think the changes I made are improvements.  Can you think of any reason to link to the incomplete one at this point, in those few articles that we have a choice about? The point to rename or merge the articles is to pick up the 100s of articles driven here via templates. (The "cleanup" is just what AWB puts in the comment line - I wasn't trying to obscure the actual changes.)--Appraiser 02:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st reason: each and every other state header in ordinal congress articles links to the list of reps article. 2nd reason: If you are concerned that the reader won't have the benefit of the complete list at the Cong Delegation article, put a see also link on the list of reps article to the Cong Delegation article.  3rd reason:  It's a lot easier to add that see also link to one article than to change 100's of other articles now, then change the same 100's of articles back.--G1076 03:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly Opppose. I invite user:Appraiser and the other users joining this AfD to join Project Congress to discuss the appropriate manner in which to display the vast amount of data attached to the United States Congress.  These lists have been discussed and changed various times over the last year.  No change should be made in haste, because in the interest of uniformity, at least 49 other articles need to be changed in like manner.--G1076 02:21, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion G1076!Pmeleski 12:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as duplication of material that exists elsewhere and something that a redirect would be inappropriate for. Cheers, ✎  Peter M Dodge  (  Talk to Me  &bull;  Neutrality Project  ) 21:53, 17 January 2007 (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.