Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 07:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete - all information in the article is redundant to articles on the Constitution itself and List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution. Since the information is all preserved elsewhere there is no need to merge any of this and the unlikelihood of the article title as a search term means no redirect is needed. Otto4711 15:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you nominated the wrong one. Delete List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, keep this article, and move Unsuccessful attempts to amend the U.S. Constitution over there.  "list of proposed" has the potential to become an ugly list since new amendments are "proposed" all the time. "Unsuccessful" at least has the criteria of the items on the list passing Congressional muster, but failing state approval.  --UsaSatsui 15:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - I agree, UsaSatsui's comment shows notability of topic, and this article is sustainable and can be kept useful in comparison to a list of all proposed amendments. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable and useful. A merge/redirect as noted above may be in order, but that does not require AfD. Newyorkbrad 22:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting that the topic is not notable. Notability has not been raised as an issue here so arguing to keep on the basis of notability doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The redundancy of one article to the other is what is at issue. Also noting that it's useful is not a particularly compelling argument. Otto4711 22:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * When "The redundancy of one article to the other is what is at issue", your first stop should be Duplicate articles, not AFD. Uncle G 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As long as only those approved by congress are listed here, which I believe they are. The Placebo Effect 00:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I disagree that the purpose or actual execution of these lists are redundant. They are  two distinct, but important topics.  Just because there's some overlap doesn't justify deleting something this encyclopedic. --JayHenry 02:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Actually, is redundancy a valid topic for AfD in the first place? I thought redundancy could either be speedied if it was completely redundant, but was otherwise addressed with a merge discussion on the relevant talk pages. --JayHenry 02:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect These articles seems to have the same basic idea. It seems like the most reasonable thing to do would be merge and redirect. Tbjablin 06:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and shorten title Definently an encyclopediac topic--Sefringle 05:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not Duplicate articles. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 01:25, 23 March 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.