Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing Rules of the Senate


 * 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 of the debate was keep. Kirill Lokshin 04:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Standing Rules of the Senate
As it stands, this is not an encyclopedia article. It's main content is merely a collection of external links. Perhaps this is something for Wikisource. (Note: If it is kept, rename the article to Standing rules of the United States Senate) Coffee 06:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It has been improved into a real article now. Keep. Coffee 16:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Undecided it seems right to have such an article, but as pointed out these are all external links. Wikisource?  Sounds reasonable. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 10:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikisource would want the actual text. A collection of external hyperlinks is of no use to Wikisource.  This is a list, albeit a mis-named one.  It should be at List of standing rules of the United States Senate if it remains an unadorned list.  (As TheCoffee alludes, there is more than one senate in the world.  See the Standing Rules of the Senate, for example.)  There are third-party sources that can be cited on the subject of the U.S. Senate rules, including (for example) an article in The Hill on rule XXII, and it would be possible to write a Standing Rules of the United States Senate article that discusses some of the rules individually.  However, the only thing holding such an article together would be that the rules form a corpus, and we already cover the ground that such an article would cover in our articles on filibuster, Impeachment in the United States,  cloture, and so forth (and, indeed, in the United States Senate article itself).  Refactoring this as a stand-alone list, with each rule linked to the relevant articles, seems to be the best option. Uncle G 11:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Undecided It's a noteworthy subject.  Needs explanatory text. Durova 15:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this article. There is also another solution: since the article United States Senate is already quite long, one could split off the section Procedures, leaving only a summary in place. This article could then be merged with the new Procedures of the United States Senate. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 17:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. Trollderella 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and handle per Paolo Liberatore's excellent suggestion. KillerChihuahua 18:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, and improve, the operation of the United States Senate is a very noteworthy subject. Should be expanded, perhaps by tackling each rule one by one, restating it in simple terms, and for the higher-numbered rules which only occasionally come into play, discussing notable historical examples/invocations of that rule. As Uncle G notes, it should be renamed to include "United States." Andrew Levine 19:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand as suggested above and also add cross-links to filibuster and Closed session of the United States Congress. Note that "Standing Rules of the Senate" is a proper name which is why the "R" is capitalized, and also why it would be improper to insert "United States" or "List of..." or anything else into the title.   If the article title collides with the name of a distinctly different "Standing Rules of the Senate" we can disambiguate at that time (but would still want to preserve the proper name). On a side note, instead of creating a Procedures of the United States Senate article, I'd rather see an article "Traditions of the United States Senate".  Much more interesting I would think...  technopilgrim 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment it's good we already have three volunteers here for the job of improving and expanding the article, because this is a very interesting topic. When you are done, please post a note here so that the other voters can change their vote. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 01:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added a crosslink on Filibuster and one was already added for closed session.  That was the easy part.  I didn't do anything on the history of the Senate rules, although I did come across a helpful link: .  I disagree with myself above & now think Procedures of the United States Senate/Traditions of the United States Senate is not an either/or choice.  Both merit a full article in their own right and Procedures of the United States Senate would be very worthwhile to add.  I've started a Traditions of the United States Senate page, which was very fun.  Did you know that bean soup must appear every day on the Senate dining room menu?  technopilgrim 02:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The Traditions of the United States Senate you are writing is a very interesting article, as also shown by the number of other editors who have already contributed (in spite of the little time the page has existed.) Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Do what Paolo suggested Youngamerican 04:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I have made a preliminar attempt at realizing my own proposal. What is clear to me is that a page on the rules themselves can be quite confusing because, as the article mentions: "The procedure of the United States Senate depends not only on the Standing Rules of the Senate, but also on a variety of customs and traditions." In other words, the rules should always be put in the context of their actual usage. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 14:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: If kept, rename Standing Rules of the United States Senate. Peter Grey 17:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, rename, cleanup Obviously valid topic, current content is unsatisfactory, but a beginning. Xoloz 15:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thejesterx 18:44, 13 November 2005 (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.