Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for London

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 Keep, non-admin closure per WP:SNOW. Nominator's rationale was inaccuracy of the article. This has been rectified by User:Dhartung. There was also unanimous consensus that article incompleteness was not grounds for deletion, so there seems little point in letting the discussion run. Thomjakobsen 00:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minister for London

Minister for London (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Totally inaccurate article, not reflecting the fact that there have been many more ministers for london than are just shown here. It's also static and, I have reason to believe, on nobody's watchlist but mine. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep That's more like an argument for expansion than deletion. The post exists, the article describes its recent history, and the page already has links leading to it: Special:Whatlinkshere/Minister for London. It's a stub article created in August, so it's too early to call it "static". Thomjakobsen 12:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Opinion It's factually inaccurate. It says that there have only been two post-holders, and that it's a new position. It isn't, and there haven't. It's a load of old rubbish, frankly. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Can it be edited so that it is accurate? It would seem most people believe it was only created recently because of the media coverage given to the recent appointments in light of the Olympics, so an explanation would be a decent addition to the article. The topic itself is notable and the article is helpful apart from the claim that it was created in 2001, so there's no need for deletion. Thomjakobsen 12:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep So rewrite it so that it's accurate. AfD is for articles which shouldn't have an article at all, not for notable subjects which have poor ones. If this isn't a duplicate of a better existing article it just needs to be improved, which you could have done in the time it's taken you to nominate it here.Nick mallory 12:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Reply - Charmed, I'm sure... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• You say there have been 'many more' ministers for London. Care to name some? Nick mallory 12:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• By all means, though they've been listed on the article talkpage for ages now, so you've obviously not looked into this AfD before voting. Keith Hill and Nick Raynsford have also been Ministers for London. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 12:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment If you're aware of ways the article might be improved, but haven't taken any steps to do so, you're hardly in a position to lecture other editors. --Dhartung | Talk 20:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• That was the point I was trying to make to Porcupine.Nick mallory 00:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, as noted above, you haven't actually raised a reason for deletion, just stating that the article is factually accurate. I've tagged it with {{Disputed}}, which is the proper course of action in such a situation. AfD isn't cleanup, and deletion shouldn't be used to combat cleaning something up. Being static and your belief that it is "on nobody's watchlist but [yours]" are also not reasons to delete. I'm slightly lost - care to explain, please? AllynJ (talk | contribs) 12:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep I've added the so far missing AfD tag on the article itself, but I don't see t anything to delete here, just to edit.--Tikiwont 13:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Apology - sorry, TW failed with the tag. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The AfD tag isn't a big problem but you may want to consider withdrawing this nomination. --Tikiwont 14:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- --Rrburke^(talk) 13:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Not to be critical, but we've spent more than a dozen edits and about 5,000 bytes here that might have been better put to work on article improvement. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly, keep this one. • Lawrence Cohen 16:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. I've rewritten the article with one good source. As an American I'm sure there are a few inaccuracies, but WP:SOFIXIT seems to apply. --Dhartung | Talk 17:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep. Mystache 17:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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.