Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign


 * 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 Michael Martin (politician). While there is substantial support for a merger, the support for deletion makes it clear that an article shouldn't exist at this title; the content is there under the redirect for anyone wanting to merge. Stifle (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

List of British MPs calling on Speaker Michael Martin to resign

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Okay, this might be a news story but a list of people involved in it is unnecessary. This list isn't notable. This should at the very most have 1 section in Michael Martin (politician). Computerjoe 's talk 09:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Computerjoe 's talk  09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Computerjoe 's talk  09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like this article kept as it is notable as a political event for all three main parties to crticise a sitting Speaker and because of the possibility of a constitutional crisis emerging. It seems incredibly notable to me! Quickbeam44 (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- Computerjoe 's talk  09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  -- Computerjoe 's talk  09:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► contribs ─╢ 09:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the controversy surrounding Michael Martin into Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament, but not necessarily the list of individual MPs, which is probably going to go out of date very quickly. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that since he has already announced his resignation no new MPs will call on him to announce his resignation. So, keeping this up to date shouldn't not be a problem.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Michael Martin (politician). Wikipedia is not news and this is exactly the sort of article which dates very badly and very quickly. It would be better rewritten as a section of the biography of Michael Martin outlining the reasons given by the MPs concerned for their stances. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Michael Martin per Sam Blacketer.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  10:38, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge into Michael Martin (politician) or Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament; it is a current issue, and WikiP needs to be up to date - but this small section of a much wider controvery does not merit an article of its own - however, as the matter will likely be settled within days, it may be better to let it stand, then reduce to a para in the most appropriate of the two possible articles (and a referring sentance in the other) - will it be most relevant to Martin's biographical page, or an article about parliamentary reform? It all depends on whether it comes to viewed as a constitutional event - or a storm in a personal tea cup. We shall (hopefully) see!  Heenan73 (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Unquestionable notability, and backed up with references for every name listed. RuiRed (talk) 12:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a bit too transient to merit an article. PatGallacher (talk) 11:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament  Lugnuts  (talk) 11:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the article into Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament, as the article gives many good sources and would be of very good use in the main article about the event. Yes, the actual event establishes very strong notability, but the list of MPs should not need to have its own separate article. Nn  Cv 2 12:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. This is what WP:NOTNEWS was intended to cover.  Even at that, the identity of who voted for what is usually of limited historical value and overshadowed by the directory rule.  While I wouldn't mind seeing a link to a list of how legislators voted on such things as a declaration of war, a resolution of confidence in the government, the impeachment of a public official, etc., a detailed breakdown is not that significant in the long run.  Mandsford (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament and/or Michael Martin (politician) as per the others. This is just one part of the ongoing situation which can be adequately covered in the articles we already have. Adambro (talk) 16:03, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not news, [the article] seems to be trying to make some sort of statement Arma virumque cano (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC) This user has since been blocked as a sockpuppet. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This user's primarily contributions to Wikipedia have been to !vote (primarily delete) on dozens of AfDs approximately 1 minute apart from each other. See AN thread --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - we're not a newspaper, this is gossip. Perhaps a brief mention of the call for his resignation in his article and in the expenses article, perhaps including notable names like Clegg's, but nothing more. - Chrism would like to hear from you 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge (at least for the time being) - this is currently a major event in British politics. It is possible that this could have profound affects on the future of politics in Britain.  In wanting to find this information this site was my first point of call and to not have these details I feel would be unforgivable.  Review this debate in a few months time when the actual affect of these calls is known. Arnie Side (talk) 19:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely we should be working the other way around? We're not supposed to be a news site so our primary focus isn't about providing information immediately in response to events. A few months time is the point at which we'll be in a position to assess the notability of this particular situation and decide whether a unique article is appropriate. We shouldn't be trying to pre-empt events and create articles on the assumption that it will be a significant event where that could well not be the case. Adambro (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - this doesn't need it's own article as a list. If Martin is removed there's an article that could be written, but it's not a list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or rename This is either a storm in a teacup or an event worthy of its own article. Either way we should wait until the issue is resolved. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * merge into Michael Martin (politician), this is where the main content about this seems to be. Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is already 91k long, and very likely to expand. Martin 4 5 1  (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essentially this is trivia. The only encyclopedic thing is the conclusion: does he resign or weather the storm? &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harry the Dirty Dog (talk • contribs)


 * Merge the vote of no confidence is very notable, but it doesn't justify a standalone list Sceptre (talk) 20:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be some kind of RSS feed of reality, or an alternative to Associated Press. This is mere trivia from people who like the idea of listing everything but haven't read WP:LIST recently. There is no point putting here what, ultimately, is a list without a formal reason for its existance. Inventing truths to justify Wiki articles is not how things work. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, at least for the time being - the ultimate fate of this list may depend on the outcome of the no-confidence vote (if there is one). But this is constitutionally unprecedented territory and hardly non-notable. Vilĉjo (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - worth keeping, but not as a separate article. edd (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge-the information is useful for anyone wanting know more but as a list I don't think it merits its own article Godfinger (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge-the information is historically interesting and notable since it's the first time it's happened in 300 years. I personally find it quite interesting to know exactly which 30 MPs (less than one in twenty of the total) broke with convention and made public statements on the matter. As the matter is now resolved the list presumably will not change further. --Merlinme (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to merge it (if that is the decision) would be Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament, as the interesting thing about it historically is how MPs came to be calling in public for the resignation of the Speaker. --Merlinme (talk) 08:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - an accurate list of the mp's makes a turning point in the knowledge of the parliament. and can allow outsiders to easily see in and give their own opinions of the events that are occuring. and i believe it to have historical significance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRGregory (talk • contribs) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is undoubtedly history in the making. I'd like to see the list cross referenced against a list of MP's dodgy expenses!Twoquidtunes —Preceding undated comment added 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Merge This is noteworthy, but merge to Michael Martin. Thats how I see it. America69 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete List is simple trivia and would be more suited to a newspaper than an encyclopædia. Tc1415 (talk) 22:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge Noteworthy but merge with Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament as this was directly in connection with the scandal as it is the first time in 300 years when a speaker of the House of Commons is forced out of office. --Joshuaselig (talk) 10:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Dateline-- London, May 19 (AP)-- Michael Martin, Speaker of the British House of Commons, resigned today.  Asked to comment, Mr. Martin said, "It was that blasted Wikipedia article.  When I saw all those blue-linked MPs on the list, I felt that I could not do otherwise."


 * Keep -- This is the first instance of a UK Speaker resigning in several centuries. Does this make it as notable as List of signers of the United States Constitution?  No.  But looking at the references, seems to indicate that this information is not gathered in one spot anywhere else.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Several other respondents have suggested merge -- but they suggest two different merge targets: Michael Martin (politician) and Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament. I suggest multiple targets for a merge is a strong argument that the article should be preserved, as-is, merely being linked to by the various suggested merge candidates.  One respondent suggested merging the list to BOTH target articles -- an obvious maintenance problem.  Another respondent has pointed out that Disclosure of expenses of British Members of Parliament is already 91K -- also a strong argument against merging.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * '''Note to potential closing admin(s): Most respondents left their comments prior to Martin's resignation.  I suggest this article be re-listed, now that he has resigned, which is likely to get a different cross-section of opinion, and their main concern -- keeping the list up to date -- no longer applies.  Geo Swan (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. The resignation of Michael Martin is now probably significant enough to warrant its own article, so it might make sense to replace this article with an article about the resignation. Also, the list of MPs who signed the Early Day Motion is probably far more definitive than a list of compiled news stories. Whether it's worth including this list is a matter for discussion, but an alternative would be to provide a link to the relevant page on Hansard Online. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete  Having a separate list of this is magnifying really small details. The event is probably worth a separate article, but not this one. I don't think the list of who has made the motion is encyclopedic content, so I am not suggesting a merge.  DGG (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2009 (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.