Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party standings in the House of Commons of Canada

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Party standings in the House of Commons of Canada

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

Inaccurate title - this article is a seating chart, not information about party standings
Unnecessary - duplicates chart on House of Commons of Canada, only with the addition of the names of individual members
Unencyclopedic - is there really a need for an article consisting solely of a chart where the only source is a publicly available version of the exact same chart? Madg2011 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a LOT of seat charts for legislatures at the Commons - no pun intended - including at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Composition_of_the_House_of_Commons_of_Canada . Perhaps this is a better place for it? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've advocated getting rid of these for years. All they do is replicate primary sourced information of little actual utility — the only people who actually need to know that Kim Rudd sits directly in front of Julie Dabrusin, or that Bob Saroya sits next to Jamie Schmale, or exactly which curtain-skirting seat in the peanut gallery Hunter Tootoo's been banished to, are employees of the House of Commons who already have access to the House's own internal charts. And the nature of Wikipedia means that the information can't be provided without violating our article design principles — actually reading a Wikipedia article should never require scrolling left to right because the page can't be constrained to a normal monitor resolution. Any other article that did that would be flagged as having a technical fuckuppery problem that needed fixed. These simply don't actually serve any substantive need; like a lot of other types of Wikipedia content that we've deprecated, they're a thing some people thought were useful at one time, but have come to look a lot less useful as our principles and best practices and content standards have evolved. Yes, others exist — they should be deleted too, because they're just not useful. (And can we please try to finally kill the comprehensive candidate lists that either violate WP:BLP or just unnecessarily reduplicate election results tables next, too?) Bearcat (talk) 01:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a seating chart repository, not even for the Last Supper. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The political equivalent of a television listings schedule. Trivia. Carrite (talk) 14:35, 11 August 2017 (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.