Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Prime Ministers 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 no consensus. Bordering on keep. Contrary to my own (now struck) first impression, this seems to be a topic discussed in reliable sources, which would give the "keep" arguments more weight, but most opinions on both sides remain rather superficial and do not discuss the sources that have been found or that are currently in the article.  Sandstein  10:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

List of fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

per reasons stated at Articles for deletion/List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States Prisencolin (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There's no case to answer as the nomination is just a vague wave to a different topic. The correct parallel is Lists of fictional presidents of the United States which is substantial.  This topic easily passes WP:LISTN as it is easy to find sources such as The most memorable fictional Prime Ministers and The Top 10: Fictional prime ministers. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:TNT as listcruft. Making a notable list might be possible, but this needs to be thrown out and completely wholesale rewritten. Right now it's totally indiscriminate. There is already Category:Fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in the meantime.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The relevant guidleine is WP:NOTDUPE which explains that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete The fact that some sources listed their top favorite fictional PMs does not justify a list of all fictional PMs, named and unnamed, major characters and passing references, in notable works and not. The endless slate of works of fiction takes inspiration from all sorts of people, places, and objects and it is not our places to attempt to catalogue all of these unrelated examples. The Independent also has a Top Ten fictional tourist destinations, fictional bands, fictional universities, fictional pubs, favourite foods of fictional characters, fictional buildings, fictional villains and more (all by the same person who "contributes a weekly top 10 of curiosities") and this is not the basis for expansive unencyclopedic lists. Reywas92Talk 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTESAL, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So it is false to claim that we cannot include applicable examples beyond such groupings or sets. If deemed helpful by consensus, we can limit them in some way with specific inclusion criteria for the given topic. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep since the list topic satisfies WP:NOTESAL. I have no issue with paring down this list to sourceable instances, but I oppose the lazy-essay WP:TNT because the page history can be preserved and linked to so listings can be reinserted with sources. Below are a few more group/set sources:
 * UK Election: The best - and worst - prime ministers from TV and film
 * The top UK prime ministers in movies
 * Fictional British Prime Ministers On Screen
 * Five of the best TV and film Prime Ministers
 * Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Reliable sources have been found covering this.  D r e a m Focus  20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Effectively random list of random stuff. Most of the characters mentioned have zero impact, reception or analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not "random" when reliable sources group such characters together. Furthermore, requiring "impact, reception or analysis" sounds like requiring each character to have standalone notability, and that is not a requirement for all lists. Here, it is common to have lists of characters from a given series who are not notable on their own. It is appropriate enough for the work that contains the character to be notable itself (and the works in the above sources are notable). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Random list. There doesn't seem to be any reliable source that I could find that groups them in the way the list article does. Maybe "Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in Doctor Who" or "Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in Torchwood", but so all encompassing. If the subject is worthy a of a list article, it should be broken down into such categories and then maybe have a "list of lists of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in fictional worlds" or something, but this is to much. It's just not coherent and it isn't covered in reliable sources the way it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not a "random list" if there are reliable sources grouping such fictional characters together. Furthermore, complaining about how the article looks, as "too much" and "the way it is" supposedly not sourceable does not matter per WP:NEXIST because sources grouping such characters exist outside Wikipedia. The article can thus be cleaned up with using these existing sources. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, things are things when they are things. Obviously. I don't really get what your point is. As I said, there isn't any source that groups them this way. So, WP:NEXIST isn't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - the list is thorough, relevent. it's an all encompassing list that can't 'be included' anywhere else as the reasoning for that is vague.  List of fictional presidents of the united states exists.Grmike (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike
 * Keep There are plenty of reliable sources available to establish notability for this subject and allow for future improvements. I also agree with that the comparison made by the nominator is the wrong one... — Hunter Kahn 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew's comment that the rationale for deletion given in the nomination is a false comparison. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - Although I have had issues with this list which I have previously raised on its talk page, this is a notable subject and potentially a useful article that people are likely to search for. Moreover I agree with the point raised that the nominator's comparison does not really hold for this article. Dunarc (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence and nature of fictional depictions of holders of substantial offices is a worthwhile topic for encyclopedic coverage, and is accomplished in such a list. BD2412  T 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that the list topic is discussed in reliable sources as required by WP:LISTN.  Sandstein   11:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you read the comments above? A couple of us listed reliable sources grouping such characters that satisfy WP:LISTN. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I've struck my opinion.  Sandstein   12:58, 6 May 2020 (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.