- 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 delete‎. Whether to split off the entire list of MPs now in Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) into a new subarticle is something that can be done separately from this AfD if desired. Sandstein 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This information already exists in the Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article which lists the MPs. I don't see why we should have an article listing the MPs of a constituency in a given period. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 08:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Owen× ☎ 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm effectively neutral - the list contains additional information not in the article, and the target article is unwieldy and merging back into that article may not be helpful, which makes me think it's a valid WP:SPLIT. At worst, though, this is a merge since the information in the list isn't duplicative. SportingFlyer T· C 11:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move per below, to remove the year from the title and copy over lists from the constituency article. This is a valid split. SportingFlyer T· C 15:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge I don't see anything here that needs a stand-alone article. The short biographies are not found in any other list of MPs and I don't really see the need to keep them like this, but they can also be merged to the constituency article. Reywas92 Talk 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Do we really need lists of MPs for every single constituency?
Athel cb (
talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because their are other lists on other constituencies does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Also as far as I'm aware, Colchester is the only constituency to have a seperate article listing all of the MPs, the other lists are appropriately included in the constituency articles and not split into seperate lists.
- They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like
overcategorization.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid
WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a
WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present).
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - I do not see the reason for limiting the years for this article. SportingFlyer T· C 13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present).
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid
WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a
WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like
overcategorization.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete as per SportingFlyer, assuming I've understood correctly, viz.: split all the lists of MPs out of the present Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article, thereby reducing its bulk, to a new List of Colchester MPs article, and merge into it the contents of List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983, which can then be deleted. Ingratis ( talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – the MPs are already listed in
Colchester (UK Parliament constituency).
Number
5
7 10:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's been argued above that Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) is too bulky with the list of MPs in it, and that the list would be better placed in its own article with fewer space constraints - I'm inclined to agree with that. Ingratis ( talk) 06:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For editors arguing for a Merge, what is the existing target article you are proposing? The target article can't be a proposed article but one that currently exists when this discussion is closed, otherwise that option is off the table.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it acceptable to rename the already existing List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983 as List of MPs for Colchester and use that as the target for the list from Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) ? Ingratis ( talk) 06:25, 9 April 2024 (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.
- 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 delete‎. Whether to split off the entire list of MPs now in Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) into a new subarticle is something that can be done separately from this AfD if desired. Sandstein 19:06, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This information already exists in the Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article which lists the MPs. I don't see why we should have an article listing the MPs of a constituency in a given period. GoldenBootWizard276 ( talk) 08:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, United Kingdom, and England. Owen× ☎ 10:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm effectively neutral - the list contains additional information not in the article, and the target article is unwieldy and merging back into that article may not be helpful, which makes me think it's a valid WP:SPLIT. At worst, though, this is a merge since the information in the list isn't duplicative. SportingFlyer T· C 11:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep and move per below, to remove the year from the title and copy over lists from the constituency article. This is a valid split. SportingFlyer T· C 15:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete/merge I don't see anything here that needs a stand-alone article. The short biographies are not found in any other list of MPs and I don't really see the need to keep them like this, but they can also be merged to the constituency article. Reywas92 Talk 14:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Do we really need lists of MPs for every single constituency?
Athel cb (
talk) 17:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please bear in mind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because their are other lists on other constituencies does not mean that this article should not be deleted. Also as far as I'm aware, Colchester is the only constituency to have a seperate article listing all of the MPs, the other lists are appropriately included in the constituency articles and not split into seperate lists.
- They're potentially valid splits, we already have lists of MPs for each constituency and that is necessarily encyclopaedic information. If you look at the Colchester article, most of it is lists of the MPs and lists of election results, which are both encyclopaedic. Splitting the article into three might provide a better overview to the reader.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 19:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like
overcategorization.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
- You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid
WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a
WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present).
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed - I do not see the reason for limiting the years for this article. SportingFlyer T· C 13:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you meant lists as in standalone articles listing every MP, such as this one. I see your point and I now agree that the current article should be split and have a seperate list for MPs considering how old the constituency is and how large the current article is, however I think that this proposed article should include MPs from 1295 till present rather than including only MPs from 1885 till 1983, with the article being split into four sections (1295–1640, 1640–1885, 1885–1983, and 1983–present).
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 11:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- You completely mis-understood my argument. The main article is 100,000 bytes. Most of it is election results and a complete list of MPs from 1295 to the present, with a brief interruption when the constituency was abolished. There is additional prose in the split list which helps provide context to the lists. The !voter I responded to essentially makes the argument the lists should also be deleted from the main article as well, which is ridiculous - historical lists of MPs are necessarily encyclopaedic information. Up-merging this would make the current article even larger. I honestly think the correct thing to do here from an editing perspective is to move this to List of MPs for Colchester and move the entire list of MPs to the list article as a valid
WP:SPLIT, keeping only recent MPs on the main page. None of that is a
WP:OSE argument, other than the fact it would not be the only list of MPs article on the website. The page size and the consitutency's lengthy history also mean it's not necessarily the case every constituency could be validly split.
SportingFlyer
T·
C 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Having the lists of MPs in each election is a different matter entirely to listing the MPs in one constituency. A case could be made for including lists of MPs elected in particular regions or counties but having a list of MPs elected in a single constituency especially when that information could be included in the main article just seems like
overcategorization.
GoldenBootWizard276 (
talk) 20:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
- Merge/Delete as per SportingFlyer, assuming I've understood correctly, viz.: split all the lists of MPs out of the present Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) article, thereby reducing its bulk, to a new List of Colchester MPs article, and merge into it the contents of List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983, which can then be deleted. Ingratis ( talk) 11:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete – the MPs are already listed in
Colchester (UK Parliament constituency).
Number
5
7 10:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
- It's been argued above that Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) is too bulky with the list of MPs in it, and that the list would be better placed in its own article with fewer space constraints - I'm inclined to agree with that. Ingratis ( talk) 06:28, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: For editors arguing for a Merge, what is the existing target article you are proposing? The target article can't be a proposed article but one that currently exists when this discussion is closed, otherwise that option is off the table.
Liz
Read!
Talk! 23:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
- Is it acceptable to rename the already existing List of MPs for Colchester, 1885–1983 as List of MPs for Colchester and use that as the target for the list from Colchester (UK Parliament constituency) ? Ingratis ( talk) 06:25, 9 April 2024 (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.