Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Living 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 with regards to deletion. Whether to merge is an editorial decision and does not require an AfD. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This rather strangely-named list is not about "living people" per se, but about how many people, who at some point of there lives have/had been PM, were living concurrently. All of this apparently has been derived from the birth/death dates of all PMs since the 17th century and, indeed, I cannot imagine anybody having addressed this topic in a reliable source. Complete OR and unencyclopedic listcruft. Hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's purely factual information, so I don't think it's exactly original research in the Wikipedia sense of the term. But it IS an indiscriminate collection of information, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. This is simply not the way that any reliable source treats history. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. All of the information is this article is correct. It's purely and simply a guide as to who was alive at a certain time. In no way shape or form does this breach guidelines for WikiPedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boy Named Stu (talk • contribs) 14:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)  User:Boy Named Stu is the creator of this article. Disclosure added per WP:AFDFORMAT.
 * Keep. This is an interesting one. Clearly this article was created based on the long-standing article, Living Presidents of the United States.  I agree with Squeamish Ossifrage that this most likely is not OR, so the question becomes whether or not it is an "indiscriminate collection of information", which would cause it to fall into the category of listcruft. Perhaps it is different in the UK, but in the US there is a fascination with the number of living presidents (simply do a google news search and you get hundreds of hits). A google news search of Living Prime Ministers, however, does not return anywhere near that number of hits. I'm not attempting to make an argument from the viewpoint of WP:OSE, but I think the Presidents article is a valid one, and to quote from OSE: "In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability ...".  It is much more developed article, but it has been around for 8 years. I'd hate to see a relatively new editor who is attempting to make contributions be discouraged. I see that the editor has an interest in UK political history, and is creating articles based on existing articles about US political history.  He has another article, List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by date of birth, again based on one about US Presidents, which is also in AfD (although in that instance, I think both articles, the PM and Presidents, should be deleted - I'm actually on the fence about that one). Onel 5969  TT me 14:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can definitely see why the editor would want to do an article on UK Prime Ministers based on the ones on US Presidents. I think they're all a little irrelevant, but I do think they all play a vital part in history. Particularly given the fact that most UK PMs aren't exactly household names. As far as I know all of the information all of the articles on both UK PMs and US Presidents are correct. It would have taken this editor hours to compile all of this information. To the average person that wasn't a hardcore fan of British PMs or British politics for that matter, this article is the perfect one to gather all of the information one would need if they wanted to get this info, rather than spend hours trying to look for it. If this article was to be deleted, I reckon all of the ones on US Presidents should go too. Definitely for keeps.Silver Sovereign (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep It would be best to incorporate this information into the main list but that's a matter of merger not deletion. See the  BBC for evidence of notability per WP:LISTN. Andrew D. (talk) 06:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: That's not coverage of the concept of living PMs. --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Reminder to AfD participants: Participants are reminded that AfD is not a vote and that arguments that are not policy-based will likely be ignored. "Being factual", for example, is not a policy-based argument (if the information were not correct, we wouldn't be talking about this but it would have been speedily deleted as a hoax or vandalism). --Randykitty (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a particularly useless list. Nothing worth merging to any other list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- I've never understood the fixation with presenting the same trivial information in a multitude of different ways. This article is just a list of trivia with shades of original research and synthesis, and has a misleading title. Reyk  YO!  08:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. I rest my case. Definitely not worthy of deletion. It's too important to delete. None of the other articles on British PMs cover this topic in as much depth as this. You cannot delete something that has as much meaning as this, despite the fact that others might interpret it as being "trivial". After all we're talking about British Prime Ministers here, not about something as meaningless as the winners of a certain chook raffle at a club, or something of that equivalent. After all, the PM's play a major part in world history here. It's an office that's been established since 1721. Long before the creation of the office of President of the United States. There are tons of articles on US Presidents that follow a similar blueprint to this, but hardly any on British PMs. I'm sure there is some sort of fascination among the number of living British PMs. This article is just a clear concise version of material that would ordinarily take hours to compile otherwise. Even if this article was merged with another one, it would the merged article too long in my view. Like the Living Presidents of the United States article, I think this one needs to be kept intact in it's own right. Boy Named Stu (talk) 15:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete it's unnecessery and useless WP:LISTCRUFT, why should anybody want to know how many former PMs are living or not at any time? The US presidents' list should be nominated for deletion posthaste. Kraxler (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 16:33, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - notability of the topic "Living Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom through history" is not established. There is already very solid List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. For having additional lists about UK prime ministers with specific focus, you need to prove that such focus itself is actually a notable topic in this context.--Staberinde (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep mathematical calculations are not original research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. While such lists should be limited to the highest offices and orders, there is encyclopedic value in providing access to this kind of information. As a purely anecdotal example, the only reason that I found this listing is that I was searching specifically for the topic of living prime ministers and presidents at the right time. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 07:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable topic such as this does not qualify as WP:Listcruft. Simply merging everything with List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom would make it too long and not as appealing. As opposed to this which covers this topic clearly and accurately. Halftime Hero (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2015 (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.