Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania's 13th Senatorial District


 * 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator.. Navou banter 01:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Pennsylvania's 13th Senatorial District

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Listing of counties, boroughs and townships in a state senatorial district. Nominator has no position, procedural nomination only. Realkyhick 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Update: AfD withdrawn by nominator. Consensus is that the article has been improved considerably since the prod was removed. Realkyhick 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the page up, adding sources to the page which includes a link on District infomation and the web page of the State Senator who represents the district. Also I put this page in a catrgory, the category of the Pennsylvania State Assembly. This page does not deserve to be removed as I corrected the situtation. I now consider this matter closed now. 67.142.130.45 22:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Paul Broun
 * Unfotunately, whether the matter is closed now is not entirely your call, nor is it mine either. That's the point of this discussion. Realkyhick 22:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, you could withdraw this nomination since nobody else has commented on it requesting a deletion. FrozenPurpleCube 22:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It has not even been up an entire day. Let's see how it goes first. I think it still merits discussion, as the changes were minimal at best. Realkyhick 22:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I merely pointed out that you're mistaken in your inability to withdraw the nomination. You could, if you desired to do so at this point.  Now you may have valid concerns about this article. However, I think you're going about this in the wrong way.  This isn't about one single district, but rather, one article among dozens.  See Category:Pennsylvania General Assembly for the others.  And potentially, an issue that is applicable to every state in the United States, since they all have districts.  Now we do have Category:United States Congressional districts and I doubt you'd get much support for deleting that, but is a state-level coverage appropriate?  I don't know.  I don't think AFD is the right place to handle it though.  FrozenPurpleCube 23:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * After I looked into it, I see you're right — I can withdraw. (I've never had this come up before, but I've only done an AfD on purely procedural basis one before.) So since it seems to be undergoing active work, let's take this off the table. We can always do it again if need be, but suspect that won't be necessary. Realkyhick 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that I have made enough changes on the page that it can be a full fledged page on wikipedia. The original problem with the page is it didn't have no sources to back up the infomation I added, I changed that. I created two links, one that included infomation on the district and one that has the web page of the State Senator who represents the District. Also I lumped the District into a category(Pennsylvania State Assembly)and added the link to the box that has links to all pages on Pennsylvania State Senate Districts. I see no problem with this page anymore after I made the necessary changes to the page. 67.142.130.45 23:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)Paul Broun


 * Suggest Withdrawel The articles main contributer appears to be activly improving the article. I would recommend the nominator withdraw this AFD, especially if the nominator has no position.  Regards, Navou banter 23:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Some material could no doubt be added listing the State Senators for each of these districts and how their boundaries have changed through redistricting. (I assume we aim to cover all districts eventually or none of them.) ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * speedy keep These will always be notable, even as stubs. DGG (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Given that the nominator has no position and the article is being actively improved, I think we should keep it. There is generally enough material from reliable sources to base an article on. Capitalistroadster 01:18, 5 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.