Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current United States senators by age

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 . ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of current United States senators by age[edit]

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

List of current United States Senators already has a sortable function where you can sort by the Senators' ages. This copycat table is an obvious case of content forking. Feedback 07:29, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While calling it a "copycat table" or "forking" doesn't accurately reflect the history (since I initially created the page in 2006, when the list of senators page did not include date of birth or age -- and I'm not even sure if sortable tables were a thing then), I agree that having the separate page may no longer be necessary. -David Baron (talk) 08:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; having a sortable table makes this article duplicative. Could even be a G7 speedy delete if @Dbaron: agrees to that (though I'd be more comfortable retaining as a plausible redirect). Nate • (chatter) 00:46, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of current United States senators. Table is already included in this article and is noticeably better presented than the one in this pointless single purpose article.Ajf773 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 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.