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.
Delete. Redundant content fork. We shouldn't spin off articles based on sortable table elements. If that's not a guideline somewhere, then it should be.
NinjaRobotPirate (
talk) 10:29, 31 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep If nothing else, the article's age at which they entered Congress is notable in its own right, as it has major career, leadership, and tenure implications. And if anything, the year of birth should be removed from the clunky current members page.
Star Garnet (
talk) 08:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
Ummm, you want to delete the (to you critically important) variable that makes the TITLE of this list unique from the article It duplicates to save this article? Is that correct?
Legacypac (
talk) 10:13, 3 January 2016 (UTC)reply
No, that was more or less a gripe at how long that more basic list takes to load with four hundred odd photos and the painful sorting therein. And pointing out that it is not likely that any more detail will be added to that page in the absence of this article. Also, vaguely hinting that the other elements of that list would probably be deserving of their own article, such as List of hometowns of current members of the House, in which simultaneous and former hometowns would add politically significant nuance, as this list does.
Star Garnet (
talk) 08:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)reply
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.