Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania

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 merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Daniel (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Participants in Texas v. Pennsylvania[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Though this Supreme Court case was notable, and many of the participants are notable individuals, this list of participants is not a notable topic, as the Supreme Court case was thrown out, and there have not been any consequences for these House members. The participants are mentioned in passing in Texas_v._Pennsylvania#Participants, and full lists can be found in the citations.

The topic of listing out these participants was discussed in Talk:Texas_v._Pennsylvania/Archive_1#Lists_of_"participants", but was never resolved, so I am bringing this page to AfD for a wider discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

:@AleatoryPonderings, Reywas92, Masem, Feoffer, DolyaIskrina, Soibangla, Love of Corey, Goethean, and Herbfur: (users involved in the previous discussion)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above ping did not go through because the edit must include a signature (I just saw this in deletion sorting). re-pinging @AleatoryPonderings, Masem, Feoffer, DolyaIskrina, Soibangla, Love of Corey, Goethean, and Herbfur:. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge As I said before, this is important information that absolutely belongs at Texas v. Pennsylvania, not chopped off into another article that gets 2% of the main article's pageviews. Might as well delete it altogether if it's split to an unread page. The signatories and lawsuit plaintiffs were significantly covered in national and regional news through this process, much more than those of other amicus briefs, and we should make this clear on the main article. No part of this is indiscriminate or undue, all being prominent politicians whose participation here received clear and substantial coverage as context to the lawsuit. Reywas92^Talk 01:26, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point, clearly nothing appears to be set to happen to this specific list of people (it would be those that subsequently voted on Jan 6 to try to challenge the results, which includes many of these people, but even *those* people are unlikely to see anything given the way the political winds have shifted.) We have have reference links that provide all these to those that are curious but the full list is overkill for Wikipedia's coverage of a case that didn't even get heard at SCOTUS. This is very much failing WP:NOT#NEWS at this point. --Masem (t) 01:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: FWIW, I just added "Amicus brief filed by 126 Republican members of the House of Representatives"[1] soibangla (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Notable subject, but not worthy of a standalone article. No reason to have a seperate article about a topic already covered elsewhere.--Kieran207 talk 02:16, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Neutrality^talk 02:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Not notable on its own but has useful information. Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania: Failure is not a criterion of notability. Plenty of failed battles, putsches and coups are of historic significance. Further, the argument that the suit was frivolous, baseless and of no legal merit makes these signatories more, not less, noteworthy. These are elected legislators and yet they signed on to the thing. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't notable at all and very few people will want or need this information in the future, especially after the attack on January 6th. It simply fails WP:NOT#NEWS, so I don't think it merits inclusion, let alone a standalone article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the lists of supporting and opposing state attorneys general into Texas v. Pennsylvania. The members of Congress are not really worth mentioning. BD2412 T 19:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to the case, as this is far too much detail, and much if it not individually sourced. Bearian (talk) 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania. Tessaracter (talk) 11:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is nothing more than a character assassination hit-piece, given it only provides specific names. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will be fine with a redirect too but outright deletion is not warranted. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Texas v. Pennsylvania, the full list of parties is always appropriate to list in a case article, even if only in a footnote (the infobox usually can only fit in an "et al" when there are as many as here). NOTNEWS has no bearing here because this information will always be a part of that notable case, if they formally signed on then they are parties (however nominatively) so we're not just talking about who voiced support. postdlf (talk) 22:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- But not all persons on that pages are parties to the case. Most are co-signers of amicus briefs, which we normally do not document in full. --Masem (t) 00:20, 7 February 2021 (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.