Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXIII

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 redirect to Standing Rules of the United States Senate. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXIII[edit]

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

Not notable outside of Standing Rules of the United States Senate. Not enough info to merit its own article. Mr. Guye (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Standing Rules of the United States Senate, which could use some expansion. bd2412 T 04:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Keep or merge; if kept, rename to privilege of the floor of the United States Senate). It's a stub and does need expansion, but the "privilege of the floor" of the Senate has a long history and adequate discussion in sources, e.g.:

Precedents Relating to the Privileges of the Senate of the United States (1893 Senate report)

Selected Privileges and Courtesies Extended to Former Members of Congress (2014 Congressional Research Service report briefly discussing floor privileges extended to former senators, with exceptions for lobbyists, and exceptions to exceptions)

Riddick 1992) - Floyd M. Riddick's commentary on privileges of the floor of the Senate)

Senate historical website: discussing long history of topic: "The matter of Senate Chamber floor access for non-members has provoked controversy for as long as there has been a Senate Chamber. ..." --Neutrality^talk 04:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge until it has been expanded enough to support an article? bd2412 T 11:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I've revised my vote to "keep or merge." Neutrality^talk 16:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)Concurrent esta[reply]

Keep The article needs to be expanded, but I see no need to merge. I'm fine with renaming too. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:10, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep/Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 08:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and possibly expand if needed in the future, but see no need to delete. Seraphim System ^(talk) 17:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per BD2412. This article gives no real information about what the content of the rule is. It would be better if the article Standing Rules of the United States Senate summarized the content of the rules rather than just listing their titles. If there are rules that require full articles to describe their content and implications, those can be broken out separately later. But this article consists at present of only two sentences of uninformative prose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:23, 14 April 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.