Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seating Plan of British House of Commons

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Delete 11 / Merge 2 / Keep 2: Delete. -- AllyUnion (talk) 05:50, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Seating Plan of British House of Commons
This is just nonsense. It isn't a seating plan, it doesn't reflect the real seating plan. It's misleading original research. Dbiv 22:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * I didn't mean to piss anyone off I simply thought that the seating of parliament (or the closest thing to it,as there is no official plan) should be there to give readers a visual aid in order to see the layout of the national lowerhouse of the United Kingdom. It was never intented to mislead people! 216.249.6.205
 * Someone has gone to some trouble to produce a diagram that has no key to what the little coloured blobs represent, is entirely speculative, will date relatively rapidly, and indicates the presence of cross-benches (which the Lords has but the Commons does not). Leave these sorts of hypotheticals to Peter Snow, who does them a lot better and more entertainingly. Delete. Uncle G 23:18, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with Uncle G. JoaoRicardo 23:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think a seating plan for the British House of Commons is worthy of a Wikipedia article, but not something with no context or grounds for interpretation. Even someone familiar with British politics would have trouble making sense of this image. 23skidoo 23:52, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * please note that the Canadian House of Commons seating before the last election was not a true representation of what the house did look like. The Provincial legislatures did not always have the correct seating plan. I would ask that rather than deleting this page, please try to find something slighty more accurate and can reflect the splits in benches, ect. 216.249.6.205
 * Weak keep. This does have a use–it's an interesting graphical representation of the comparative party strengths in the House of Commons. Similar graphs are often produced in the United States. Change a bit to reflect said purpose (and wikify) and we've got something here. Mackensen (talk) 02:08, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The graphs of the US Congress are because, AFAIK, seating is by party affiliation. --Carnildo 02:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Extremely weak keep, needs decompressing to bring it within the 32kb size bracket and wikification but it is an encyclopedic subject. Change of vote to delete: there is no set seating plan for the commons outside what side the government or opposition sit and the difference between front and back bench, and this is already pointed out elsewhere in the encyclopedia. -- Francs2000 | Talk 15:38, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge the graphics to the main article and delete. There is no seating plan, but as Mackensen said, it's an interesting graphical representation of the comparative party strengths in the House of Commons. 03:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * If it is in any way accurate, merge into MPs elected in the UK general election, 2001. Martg76 04:10, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a valid topic as best I can figure. Everyking 04:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - its a valid topic, but it is based on speculation as far as I can tell. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I had originally created the table for use on the British House of Commons paged but it was opted to be removed as that page was already very large. I recreated it in a wikified table of a much smaller size but, as you can see on the talk page there semed to be no interest for it.  216.249.6.205 added it to the page now being discussed for deletion and just brought this to my attention over on my talk page and asked that I comment.  He points out on my talk page that he has recreated the article discussed here at Party Comparison of British House of Commons and I have edited that article and replaced it with the wikified (and much smaller byte-wise) version.  I agree that this is a misnomer if it is passed off as a seating plan but is a useful tool in visualizing the strength of the labour majority and that of the other parties.  I does not suggest that there is a crossbench but points out that it is impossible for all members to sit on the benches should they all be present in the chamber and that they would have to rush between the benches towards the table.  I agree that this page should be deleted but say we keep it over at Party Comparison of British House of Commons.  - Jord 05:34, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting Philip 10:16, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - duplicates Party Comparison of British House of Commons as stated above. -- RHaworth 12:44, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Delete. Duplicates with Party Comparison of British House of Commons. Since the House of Commons is essentially free seating (for the backbenches anyway), not strictly speaking accurate, unlike say the New Zealand parliament or the Hong Kong legislative council, both of which have fixed seats for each member. --JuntungWu 14:38, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good. --Irishpunktom\talk 16:03, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * The page's name is a misnomer. Hopelessly misleading, right down to the fact that not every MP can fit in the chamber at once. The informative benefit from a visualisation of this is outweighed by the misleading connotations it carries. Delete. Lacrimosus 20:17, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Diagram resembles periodic table / Carl Sagan interstellar message on Pioneer 11, neither of which have anything to do with British politics, sadly. To quote the title of an email I have just received from a complete stranger, 'fist action'. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Indecision. How accurate is this factually?  As others have said, there is no seating plan per se in the UK House of Commons.  There is, as far as I am aware, a government side (to the house) and a non-government side.  Likewise, the figures of actual seats: are these correct?  I'm not sure - and it's not overly easy to find out.  These figures change often too: deaths and by-elections and so on.  ON THE OTHER HAND, I like the idea of a graphical representation of the Political strengths in the House.  Could be useful to an amateur Peter Snow.. --Marcus22 14:41, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not very accurate at all. See what Francs2000 and Juntung wrote earlier, and British_House_of_Commons. On General Election nights, the U.K. television news services draw these kinds of diagrams, but they are merely representational, being pretty much glorified pie charts, rather than actual accurate plans. The news services, too, have the problem of what to do when the number of government or opposition members exceeds the capacity of that side of the chamber.  As I recall, on the night of the Labour landslide victory some years ago, the real Peter Snow solved this by extending the government benches through the wall underneath Strangers Gallery. These diagrams are not "seating plans" at all. Uncle G 16:18, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)