- 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 no consensus. There are two questions here, whether the article should be deleted and whether the article should be merged in some way into the main legislative chamber articles. Regarding the first question, as noted by people WP:LISTN is based on the notability of the list topic not that of the individual items of the list so that isn't a good argument for deletion. It is not clear from this discussion why WP:INDISCRIMINATE is supposed to apply here and the counterargument offered is valid. A bigger question is whether the list topic as a whole is notable; Spinningspark has offered one source and it's hinted at that there is room for expansion, but it's not a lot of evidence. Regarding the second question, the lines of argument are that either the list is redundant to the committee lists on the legislature articles or that there is room for expansion here/that the split is justified (although somewhat vaguely). Overall my assessment is that this discussion is leaning towards putting the list pages on the legislative house pages, but not enough to deem this a consensus. So no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
List of legislative committees of Georgia (U.S. state)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of legislative committees of Georgia (U.S. state) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject fails WP:LISTN now that this AfD deleted all the articles that were listed here. Since this isn't a notable subject, there's no reason for the list to exist. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman ( talk) 00:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Fails
WP:INDISCRIMINATE, etc.
I would not oppose the content itself being integrated into the respective chamber's article, but since it's bicameral there are two targets and this isn't a plausible redirect either way, so I vote outright deletion.Both articles already have committee lists. (Also, re the last AFD, I do think state legislatures are/at least ought to be inherently notable, but that's irrelevant here.) – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 01:09, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per outcome of the AfD's which consisted of every list entry. List now fails
WP:LISTN.
Ajf773 (
talk) 09:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- LISTN says no such thing. What it actually says is Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable... The fact that every item in the list has been deleted on notability grounds does not affect the notability of the list one bit.
WP:CSC criterion #2 explicitly says that a list of all non-notable items is a valid list precisely because the individual items cannot have articles.
Spinning
Spark 17:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @
Spinningspark: If the list of items was notable we would need sources to show that but sources don't discuss the collective of committees, just as sources don't discuss the committees themselves. The list fails
WP:GNG, hence why my nomination said
"Since this isn't a notable subject"
. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- @
Spinningspark: If the list of items was notable we would need sources to show that but sources don't discuss the collective of committees, just as sources don't discuss the committees themselves. The list fails
WP:GNG, hence why my nomination said
- LISTN says no such thing. What it actually says is Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable... The fact that every item in the list has been deleted on notability grounds does not affect the notability of the list one bit.
WP:CSC criterion #2 explicitly says that a list of all non-notable items is a valid list precisely because the individual items cannot have articles.
Spinning
Spark 17:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. The book
Politics in Georgia lists the committees and discusses them as a group over several pages.
However, I would not object to the page being reduced to an index of the two sections in the chambers' articles.Spinning Spark 17:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC) - Keep or merge to parent article, which currently just links to this list. Justifiable as a WP:SPLIT even notwithstanding whether the subtopic of committees is itself notable. These kinds of AFDs are always a poor use of the process, where it's really a question of how much detail a notable topic merits and how to best organize it, and there has been a failure to even attempt talk page discussion of that issue first. SpinningSpark is also correct that the LISTN deletion argument presented completely misapplies/misunderstands that guideline as the separate notability of individual entries is irrelevant. postdlf ( talk) 17:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The nomination should be withdrawn as a very clear misapplication of the wp:listn guidelines. I also disagree that the list fails wp:indiscriminate as the list is very much the antithesis of an indiscriminate collection of information; organized on highly discriminate, well defined, objective criteria. Sadly, I missed the discussion which resulted in the mass deletion of these committee stubs when merge/redirect to this list would have been a far more intuitive outcome if what best serves Wikipedia is the primary endeavor. Notwithstanding the many things Wikipedia is not, it is the largest and most popular general reference work in the history of the world and that prominence is deliberately diminished when probable search terms on plausible topics are precluded from appearing in search results (by deletion) when they so easily could and arguably should appear in those results (by redirection) instead. Finally, while I am not against Spinningspark's suggestion to possibly reduce this list to an {{ sia}}, I would prefer expanding it to include all of the verifiable information that was lost in deleting the stubs while leaving the lists in each of the chamber articles as they are with a main article hat note added to each linking here. If the list survives this discussion, I will begin working on it to that end. Thank you.-- John Cline ( talk) 14:30, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Content is already at Georgia State Senate and Georgia House of Representatives; expansion is welcome there, a split is not warranted. At the very least the title is wrong. Reywas92 Talk 22:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Delete: Per User:Reywas92. The "keep" was very compelling concerning WP:listn guidelines, mass deleting of the stubs, possible redirects to this page, and an editor taking interest --"UNTIL"-- I saw the above mentioned Senate and House lists, that this list just duplicates, with the possible exception of joint committees. I cannot see why the above provided main article links can be expanded, or redirected to, so this renders most of that discussion moot. Otr500 ( talk) 01:42, 18 June 2019 (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.