Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former members of the United States House of Representatives


 * 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The result was speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Shalom Hello 21:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

List of former members of the United States House of Representatives

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

At 641 KB, this is the longest article on the English Wikipedia (the next largest being less than two-thirds the size) and it does nothing that a category would not do. We have Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives and I can not imagine a situation why anyone would need to have only the "former" members, and if they did, why they wouldn't be able to use the existing category and just click to see whether the member is still in Congress. Furthermore, it has already been split up into shorter articles for A-E, F-L, M-P, Q-T, and U-Z. &larr;BenB4 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to category, per nom. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 04:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't consider this redundant to the category for a couple of reasons. The category lists only names, but the list includes other vital information alongside the names (e.g. when they served in the House of Representatives).  Also, categories are limited to 200 per page, but lists can go longer.
 * Since the article is already split into smaller lists, this page could be turned into a set-index page, with links to the other pages. That's an editorial decision, and does not require a formal deletion debate. Shalom Hello 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to !vote keep then? &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per summary style as pointer to the smaller articles. If we're not considering deleting them, why get rid of this entirely? If you want to point to this for any reason it's a lot easier to point to an umbrella than to just one. --Dhartung | Talk 06:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to disambiguation list/index for the shorter articles... see List of Star Wars planets for an example. Ensure article is completely split out into subarticles first. -- saberwyn 11:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep but replace with an index to the sublists A-E, F-L, etc. This isn't redundant to a category because it can and does include redlinks, and because other information is listed with each name. I don't see why this list should not also include current representatives, also... &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obvious encyclopedic value. --Fang Aili talk 13:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am not sure, but maybe the nominator is suggesting we delete List of former members of the United States House of Representatives because it is so long, and keep the pages that break it up (A-E, etc.) In that case, I suggest we redirect List of former members of the United States House of Representatives to A-E. The entire list by itself is too long--it just broke my browser. --Fang Aili talk 13:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Agree with creating a nav page, per User:Brighterorange. --Fang Aili talk 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of former members of the United States House of Representatives (A-E); further navigation can proceed from there. There's no point to making this a separate navigation page.  RandomCritic 14:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect, agree with above by RandomCritic, with short summary of list, and links to all sections of the list. Other -- Wait Per Valadius' request, awaiting completion of list, after which I will review and make my decesion. Still leaning towards a more comprehensiveable breakup of the list purely for navigational reasons. Would oppose any removal of names or info. On a side note, this list has broken my browser more times than I care to count. By that fact alone makes me feel that *some* change is neccessary. Zidel333 16:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Before any of you rush to judgment on this, I implore you to hear me out.  I understand that this is by far the longest article, I know that.  I have been working on this article, for the most part on my own, for over two years.  It is EXTREMELY close to being completed.  Please see my user page for a fuller understanding of its completion rate.  Now, this may be selfish on my part, but think about this for a minute - imagine that you have been working on something for over two years, something that you regard as a major accomplishment, and then, quite possibly a week before it was to be completed, it was torn to bits.  That's the way I'm feeling right now.  Therefore, I beg of you all, please reserve your final judgment on this article's fate until I have completed it.  Now, ultimately, once I have completed this page, I will restructure it so that it won't take up so much space, but please, I implore you, if you have concerns, please talk to me.  This is essentially my pet project, and I am very defensive about it. — Valadius 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Valadius, given that the information has been separated into subarticles, what is your position on that? I think it's a reasonable article but I prefer it split up in some fashion. (Noting that we already have articles such as everything on US Congress by state, although I have no idea of their completeness, so that option is already taken care of.) Although I'm in favor of keeping the information, though, realize that effort isn't a keep rationale, unfortunately. --Dhartung | Talk 20:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that people on the talk page are complaining that it won't load in their browsers. &larr;BenB4 21:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per numerous keep comments above. This is an extremely important and useful list; among other things, the redlinks reflect articles still to be written. Newyorkbrad
 * Keep It's a long article covering a large and important subject. A category does not allow the presence of redlinks, which show articles which need to be created. categories and lists have different functions in Wikipedia. Lists can include the additional data fields such as years of service and parties. No objection to redirecting to a series of similar lists broken up into A-E etc. to avoid crashing the computer of someone with limited ram or a slow connection. Edison 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I was bold and directed to the shorter lists (A-E)(F-L)(M-P)(Q-T)(U-Z). If no one reverts it, then we can close the AfD; if someone reverts it, then never mind.--Old Hoss 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdraw as nominator, I endorse this action and ask that this AfD be closed. &larr;BenB4 21:16, 3 August 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.