Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago Alderman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 IRRELEVANT. This isn't WP:CFD. dbenbenn | talk 15:11, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Category:Chicago Alderman[edit]
(Grider marked the page for VfD but did not finish the job).
- Relectant keep. But the articles in this category must be raised above stub level. We have 659 articles for the House of Commons. So allowing 50 for Chicago (population 2,896,016) seems reasonable. "One stereotype about Chicago is certainly true: its citizens love politics" - from Chicago. -- RHaworth 18:27, 2005 Feb 17 (UTC)
- Other than quoting another article from Wikipedia, how can you substantiate this? Are we being fair, or demonstrating a systemic bias towards articles focused inwardly on local municipalities in the United States? GRider\talk 19:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Can't be systemic bias surely - I am a Brit and totally bored with American politics. The love politics quote was put in to suggest that possibly we will not be inundated with lists for every American municipality.
On the other hand, we don't even have cast lists for every UK local government council - still less articles for each member. The Greater_London_Authority covers about 8 million people but I see no list of its members here. Perhaps, for the USA, we should draw the line at the level of State legislatures. But I will leave my vote unchanged. -- RHaworth 03:14, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- Can't be systemic bias surely - I am a Brit and totally bored with American politics. The love politics quote was put in to suggest that possibly we will not be inundated with lists for every American municipality.
- Other than quoting another article from Wikipedia, how can you substantiate this? Are we being fair, or demonstrating a systemic bias towards articles focused inwardly on local municipalities in the United States? GRider\talk 19:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- As long as the articles exist, KEEP category. I personally don't think this level of politician is encyclopedic, but many have been kept, alas. FWIW, Chicago is notorious across the US as being the most machinistic politially, especially locally, between the Daley machine, and their notorious "vote early, vote often" motto. If the articles get deleted, of course delete the Cat (not that this is normally the place to raise this issue, but since the articles on the cat are being questioned here, might as well keep it all together). Niteowlneils 19:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Since there's so many non-notable people in this category - how about merging them into a simple list (with birthdate and profession and some other details as needed). Radiant! 20:58, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with a merge and (maybe) redirect to the Chicago aldermen page. Then the category can be replaced with Category:Chicago, or some such thing. -R. fiend 21:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Radiant! and R. fiend, though wiki ought to have a guideline about things like "minimum population of articles that merits a category". It would resolve this kind of thing in the future, and facilitate less moderation time. EggplantWizard 21:32, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, contains many non-notable individuals and stubs, not useful. Megan1967 23:59, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: Please read Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Bernie Hansen. Uncle G 00:39, 2005 Feb 18 (UTC)
- This should have gone up on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. I say keep but rename to Category:Chicago aldermen. -Sean Curtin 01:44, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Agree with Sean Curtin. Meelar (talk) 02:35, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete All of the Aldermen should be merged on one page instead of stubs. No need for a category. — Linnwood 07:16, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Get rid of the individual articles and merge them. No need for a category in this case. Carrp | Talk 07:24, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, no need for this. JamesBurns 11:21, 27 Feb 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.