Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom


 * 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 Cabinet of the United Kingdom. Michig (talk) 19:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

History of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article serves no purpose. It only shows information which is better accessed elsewhere. This information is already contained at Blair ministry, Brown ministry and Cameron ministry. These pages are linked together at List of British governments. They are superior in every respect this one, which is hidden away, and has bizarre title. Nominating this, per a discussion at Template talk:David Cameron cabinet 1 vertical. RGloucester (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cabinet of the United Kingdom whose content is more appropriate for this title. Warden (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article serves no purpose, and a redirect would serve no clear purpose since no one would search for it. -Rrius (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The current article seems to average 10 hits/day which is enough traffic to warrant a redirect. Warden (talk) 15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Frankly that figure sounds dubious. Where do you get it from and are you sure it isn't vulnerable to mistake. If it is absolutely true, how long has that been the case? And is there any way of knowing whether there are different IP addresses accessing it? Again assuming the figure is correct, so what? the article as it exists is almost completely unrelated to the section to which you suggest we redirect. So what good would the redirect do for those 10 people who you say view that article every day? -Rrius (talk) 07:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Having looked at this, the article was just barely over an average of 8 views in the month of June, which doesn't seem much different from other months. It is implausible that this article has been reached terribly often from searches, which leaves links. It was linked from United Kingdom general election, 2005 as a part of a wikilink for the phrase "government positions" in a sentence about the post-election reshuffle and from Cabinet of the United Kingdom in the "See also" section. It seems more probable that those views come from a combination of the the editor(s) who created and built the article and from people using the "See also" link. The former is a poor reason to keep it because a redirect won't replace the private garden, and the latter is silly reason to keep it since we don't as a rule link to redirects that link back to the page. If there was the barest connection between the existing article and the history section or there were a series of links to the article for which the history section were a reasonable destination, it would make sense. But neither is the case. There is no connection between the section and the article other than they both have to do with the Cabinet and chronology, and there is no mainspace link beside the one at the article you propose as the redirect. -Rrius (talk) 08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Cabinet of the United Kingdom per Warden. Redirects are cheap, the suggested redirect is appropriate, and, 8 hits a day or 10 hits a day, some people have been looking at it - this could be through searching directly, this could be through possibly inappropriate links to the article, but the fact is we just don't know which and should not be assuming the latter without data. If, at a later date, the redirect is getting little or no traffic, it can always then be taken to RfD. PWilkinson (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (or possibly redirect to Cabinet of the United Kingdom per Warden). We deal with successive governments by articles on ministries, which tend to cover both cabinet and non-cabinet ministers.  The content belongs in Blair ministry, Brown ministry and Cameron ministry, but it is already there (and better done).  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2012 (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.