Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current members of the United States Congress


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 22:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

List of current members of the United States Congress

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list is essentially duplicative of List of current United States Senators and Current members of the United States House of Representatives. Rrius (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant as per nomination. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with above.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 04:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of current United States Senators and Current members of the United States House of Representatives rather than delete. This isn't an exact duplicate of those two lists, and it has some useful information that the other two tables do not, specifically the committee assignments.  I believe that it's more relevant than a person's religious denomination, although there's no reason the two can't exist.  With a merge, at least, there would be a consensus that the other two tables could be expanded and that the committee information would not be reverted.  Mandsford (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The list up for deletion only has House members up to Georgia's 1st district. Everything alphabetically after that simply isn't there. What's more, it is difficult enough keeping up with the changes in committee membership at the committee and legislator articles. This adds just one more place that would actually have to be finished before being added. Finally, while you might not think a legislator's religion is important, yours is not the only opinion on the matter. -Rrius (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh now, I didn't say religion wasn't important, but it is less important than committee assignments would be. I see no reason that both can't be mentioned, however.  Committee assignments do not change constantly; there are about 20 in each house, and the assignments of membership are formally approved by the entire body at the beginning of the term.  It might not take an act of Congress to switch committees, but it does take a House resolution.  Obviously, I'm not saying the list should be kept, but that there's some relevant information should be merged.  But, as they say, mine is not the only opinion on the matter.  Mandsford (talk) 19:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. House membership sometimes does change with resignations from committees and the like. What's more, there is no compelling reason for having committee membership in the list. All members of committees are listed on the committee pages, and all members have their committees listed at their articles. It is a lot of information that is difficult to compare side by side (making it of dubious usefulness in a list) and that difficulty is compounded by the need for abbreviations, which make the information even harder to read. Finally, once again, more than half of the House is missing from the list. As such, pausing to merge the tables is silly because not all the information is there. If you think it is worth doing, copy it into your user space to preserve it. If you do decide to add committee assignments to the relevant lists, I recommend you suggest it at the lists and WP:WikiProject U.S. Congress first. I say that because doing it is likely to be contentious, and it would be a waste of your effort only to have it reverted. -Rrius (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I took your suggestion that a legislator's religion is less important than his or her committee assignments to mean you though it unimportant. I'm not sure how I'm wrong there, but your "oh, now" suggests it is. I didn't think that was a huge leap, but I'm sorry I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And just to be clear, to my understanding, we are both talking about importance for the list, not in the abstract. That wasn't clear, but I thought, in context, it would be. -Rrius (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm good, and no offense was taken. I'm interested in seeing how others weigh in on what you and I have said. Mandsford (talk) 21:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The list could be amended to form part of a hierarchy of lists. Deletion is not appropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that there's information on here that shouldn't be lost, but how much of an amendment would you propose? Almost all of this is, as others have pointed out, redundant. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Could you explain what you mean? I'm afraid I have no idea what "a hierarchy of lists" means or how it would be "amended" to make it so. Could you also explain why it is worthwhile to keep this list that simply lacks 75% of the House of Representatives? -Rrius (talk) 20:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:29, 19 October 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.

I would like to say that I have been working on this page but it is very time consuming and have not had time to finish it. Please do not delete it because I have not had enough free time to work on it. Thanks Theking17825 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC).