Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of living former United Kingdom MPs


 * 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 delete. Seddon talk 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

List of living former United Kingdom MPs

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:LISTN; and quite likely is nothing but WP:NOTSTATS (with bland and obvious statistical platitudes of no encyclopedic interest). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 17:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not an almanac nor a collection of trivia. pburka (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:LISTN. These people are of public interest because they hold special security passes and tend to work as lobbyists.  See Revealed, for an example of coverage. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * What you have is coverage which could just as well go into Member of Parliament (United Kingdom), and which does not justify at all any of the listcruft nor the OR statistics like the paragraph beginning "As of 18 August 2021, there are 1,065 former Members of Parliament still alive [...]" (the Guardian article only mentions 300 something, so it's clearly not even coverage of the group as a whole, only of some subset).RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN states that "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability" and so we're good. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. PMs and POTUSes (POTUSi?) are under siege. MPs are way too far down the political food chain for anyone to notice as a group. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - while I personally find parts of this interesting, I would agree with the nominator's rationale and the arguments above. Dunarc (talk) 22:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a useful list for readers who wish to learn about the revolving door. Reywas92Talk 04:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete unwieldy list that requires constant maintenance to add and remove members. Ajf773 (talk) 10:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with what others have stated above Edge3 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The intersection of "has held public office X" and "is still alive" is to my eye self-evidently a WP:Non-encyclopedic cross-categorization, and as such WP:DELREASON (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. Of all possible parameters to list this group of people by, being alive is certainly one of them – but so is being born on a Wednesday. TompaDompa (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Very useful resource for comparing former MPs and when they served. The argument for "living" being an arbitrary criterion is reasonable, but that could be fixed by changing the scope of the article to include all MPs elected since a certain date. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 02:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lists of living former holders of a political office are not the kind of content it's valuable for Wikipedia to maintain. For one thing, they're not necessarily updated promptly (or at all) when people die — when I reviewed (and AFDed) the similar list that formerly existed for Legislative Assembly of Ontario a number of years back, I found four dead people on a spotcheck of just seven entries without even going through the whole list, meaning that it simply wasn't getting updated for accuracy at all. Furthermore, this list depends very heavily on primary sources rather than reliable or notability-building ones; that is, most people's status as still-living is referenced solely to their Hansard biography instead of to any recent news story suggesting a reason why there would be anything significant to be found in the intersection of "former MP" with "not dead yet". If no other sources are discussing the significance of the grouping, such that you have to rely on primary sourcing to compile an original research list of something because other independent sources haven't already done that for you, then that's not a list Wikipedia should be maintaining or curating. And no, applying an arbitrary election date cutoff to separate living former MPs who "belong" in the list from living former MPs who "don't belong" in the list just doesn't solve the problems with it either. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (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.