Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Cabinet Secretaries Who have served more than Eight Years


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 05:24, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

List of United States Cabinet Secretaries Who have served more than Eight Years

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and listcruft  CatcherStorm    talk   14:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. After all, there are lists of female Cabinet Secretaries and the like. There aren't many cabinet secretaries who have been there forever, but more than enough to have an article dedicated to them. There was one who was appointed by McKinley who was basically ignored by his two sucessors and lasted sixteen years, three secretaries of the treasuries lasted more than ten years, much of FDR's cabinet lasted longer than he did and a few of Harding's appointees lasted well into the Hoover administration Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above argument actually makes the point for why this is an "indiscriminate" list of cruft, not comparable to list of top-level distinctions such as female or another demographic. Delete per nom. JesseRafe (talk) 16:10, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * how is it not comparable and "indiscriminate"? This is a very specific list. Besides, there are lots and lots of lists of officials by "length of tenure." This is very discriminate. Eight years isn't arbitrary, after all, only ONE President has been in office for more than eight years. That there's a very select group of cabinet secretaries that have lasted a decade or more is quite notable.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. It needs sources, preferably sources that specifically discuss the tenure length of the subjects. But I hardly think this is indiscriminate. Given the structure of the executive branch, this sort of thing is rarer than you'd think. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep sourcing is needed, but this list is actually very much WP:DISCRIMINATE. This isn't random information, but rather it is information that is very precisely defined. Lepricavark (talk) 02:36, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete List is a WP:FORK; mere listcruft. Drdpw (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 02:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per, , . This is not a random list, it is clearly defined, and given how few of these there are out of all who have held the positions, it is definitely of interest. Probably useful for historical and political studies, whether of the positions themselves or of broader topics. , what do you mean by "List is a WP:FORK"? To quote that project page, "Mirrors and forks of Wikipedia are publications that mirror (copy exactly) or fork (copy, but change parts of the material of) Wikipedia." All the references are to U.S. Government pages (*.gov). If you have a relevant guideline in mind, please name and link it; if not, you have no argument. Some comments about the article as a whole:
 * Criterion and title: Have there been other Cabinet Secretaries who served under more than one president, even if for less than eight years? For example, appointed during Presidentx's second term and reappointed by Presidentx+1, but didn't stay a total of eight years? Frankly, when I saw the title of this article I thought the whole idea was to list cabinet officers who had served under more than one president, rather than ones whose tenure in office exceeded a criterion that just happens to be the limit on how long a president can serve. And that, I believe, would provide a much more appropriate title for the article, especially if there have been cabinet officers who served more than one president but for less than eight years. And what about service in different cabinet positions? Would someone who served in two presidents' cabinets but in different capacities (if there ever have been any, which seems more unlikely the more I think of it) be included? Even in terms of nomenclature, the current title is inaccurate. The second member of this elite group (I've just added a "Years of service" column to the table, which allows a chronological sort) was Attorney General William Wirt, who was not technically a "Secretary" at all.
 * Title format: "List of United States Cabinet Secretaries Who have served more than Eight Years" — What's with this scattershot use of capital letters? Sure, the first word and the name of the country are no-brainers, and "Cabinet Secretaries" has some justification even though it's not being used as a title with a name. But "Who"? "Eight"? "Years"? According to MOS:TITLE,
 * [Unlike the usual rule for English-language titles], for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized.
 * So, if the title is not substantively changed, it should at least become "List of United States Cabinet Secretaries who have served more than eight years"; if all the mods I've suggested are adopted, something like "List of United States Cabinet members who have served under more than one president"; else, something between.
 * If the article is kept, all these sub-bullets of my comments will belong on its talk page, but I thought it worthwhile to bring them up here.
 * Please me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 06:54, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * First off. William Wirt was in the Cabinet. Thus he was a "Secretary." In the US, a "Secretary" is the same as a European "Minister." Second, this list is people who were in office a VERY LONG time. All but one served more than a decade. Cabinet Secretaries usually don't last long, usually two or three years. Those who served under more than one president usually were there when a president died and didn't last very long under the "former Vice President." For example,Taylor's cabinet resigned en masse almost immediately as they didn't like Filmore very much. They technically served in his administration for a week or two. From the mid-19th to the early 20th centuries, the old president's cabinet would meet with the new president the day after the inauguration and leave office the day after that. Does this mean they served under more than one president? Reagan was nice enough to appoint a couple of Bush's people to the cabinet in his last year in office but they didn't actually serve any longer than most in the cabinet. Franklin Roosevelt was unique and will remain so due to the 22nd amendment.


 * It might be nice to have a list/article on Cabinet members by length of service, but there are too many of them and most served less than one presidential term. That's why this list is necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If not for this AfD I would have moved the page to "List of United States Cabinet members who have served more than eight years". When it is closed I will move it unless someone else moves it first. (I don't have any fundamental objection to making it "...who served under more than one president" but I think you should gather some consensus first, and in the meantime I don't think there would be any harm having it at a slightly nicer title in the meantime.) - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you. That will be a help. --Thnidu (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

(Please use ping when asked to. That and similar templates, or a user page link like User:arglebargle79, will ensure that the user is notified. -- I indented your last paragraph above to match the level of the rest of your comment.)

You make good points about duration of term vs. raw number of presidents served under.

You wrote
 * First off. William Wirt was in the Cabinet. Thus he was a "Secretary."

. Otherwise it's WP:OR, and I'm not even sure what it means: "Secretary" = "Cabinet officer"? That sounds circular: No, I won't buy it. Where does it, where doesanything, say that? And analogy to titles in other systems of government ("Minister") is even further off target; let's leave them out of it altogether.
 * 1) ''"Secretary" = "Cabinet officer"
 * 2) ''Wirt was a Cabinet officer.
 * 3) ''Therefore Wirt was a Secretary.

Cabinet of the United States says
 * Aside from the Attorney General, and the Postmaster General when it was a Cabinet office, they all receive the title of Secretary. Members of the Cabinet serve at the pleasure of the President; the President may dismiss or reappoint them (to other posts) at will.

I don't think it is wise to confuse the reader by focusing on the terminology. That said, though, perhaps the title of this should be changed to use "Cabinet members" instead of "Secretaries". It's obvious from the definition of their posts that the Attorney General and Postmaster General are Cabinet members. It is in no way obvious that they are "Secretaries". --Thnidu (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per my comments above. This seems like a clean cut case, but my neutral-ish comment doesn't reflect my position as such. I see no reason why indiscriminate would apply here, and thus see no reason why this article should not be kept. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep for the reasons described by Lepricavark. Eight years has special significance because it is the term limit of a US president. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:20, 27 February 2017 (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.