Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X

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 List of Members of the Canadian Senate. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Members of the Canadian Senate - X

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

Unnecessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be deleted, but it should certainly be restructured. There is a series of articles here instead of one huge list, so instead of deleting it simply redirect this page to either the "W" and/or "Y" page, and then change the templates. We certainly do not need "This page is intentionally left blank" pages on Wikipedia, but redirects are usually helpful.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 05:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (Rename) to List of Members of the Canadian Senate ; as people will expect this list to exist, and may explicitly type it in, so point it to the index (rename the article to redlink and rebuild as an index to the other articles), and make a note there that no people with surnames starting with X exist under this condition. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, that proposed list has just been created, through the WP:AFC process. That's a perfectly valid argument- people will expect an index list to exist when we break a subject up into 26 lists. I'd agree with redirecting this blank list to the main list, and making a note of the absence of X's there. Should one ever be elected/appointed, recreating this list would be trivial. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:16, 29 December 2009 (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.