Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister for the Civil Service


 * 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. A further merge discussion is encouraged on the article's talk page. Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 00:54, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Minister for the Civil Service

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Minor and non-notable position always held concurrently with the British Prime Ministership. I have looked up all of the sources (including the 1968 Times article) and they do not discuss the position at all, merely mention it tangentially. PROD-tag was removed for no reason. ╟─TreasuryTag► person of reasonable firmness ─╢ 06:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. As with Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Security I'm a bit confused by the nomination. I understand that the prime minister always holds this position, but it is a separate portfolio, so to speak, one which began at a certain time for a certain reason. It's a perfectly legitimate encyclopedia topic, and if the sourcing is poor I'm quite confident that can be remedied. This article is akin to the one on First Lord of the Treasury though that "position" goes back much further. The nominator has not provided a reason to delete, and I would agree with the person who removed the prod that TreasuryTag should have maybe discussed any issues on the article talk page rather than prodding and then running off to AfD once the prod was removed. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The nominator has not provided a reason to delete. Which part of, "I have looked up all of the sources (including the 1968 Times article) and they do not discuss the position at all, merely mention it tangentially," isn't a reason to delete? The title itself is non-notable; or can you find any references to back it up? ╟─TreasuryTag► Counsellor of State ─╢ 08:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm searching through the entire Times Digital Archive 1785—1985, to which I have a subscription, and I am finding no hits of "Minister for the Civil Service" except lists of Cabinet members since the 1960s. It seems that nobody has ever carried out any notable action with their Minister for the Civil Service hat on; this is genuinely not a notable position. ╟─TreasuryTag► high seas ─╢ 08:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service seems pretty notable. But you're missing the point here. The Minister for the Civil Service did not always exist&mdash;it was created at some point and its role was delineated, right? It was decided that the role would be filled by the PM, and that has always been the case since, I guess, the 1960s. In the 1980s, maybe today too, the head of the Home Civil Service reported "to the Prime Minister in the prime minister's capacity as Minister for the Civil Service." This is hardly an exciting article, and I'm not surprised you don't find a lot about the position in newspaper archives, but undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post and its history. The fact that we don't have that now is not a reason to delete, and neither is "I looked at the sources in the article and they were not good." It's completely reasonable for a reader to come here looking for a basic description of the "minister of civil service" hat that all PMs wear and I'm sure we can construct an article that does that even if we are not there yet. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Having an article on a legal case does not mean that Wikipedia should have separate articles on both parties. "Undoubtedly there are books and/or articles on the history of the UK government which briefly outline this particular post." Then go find them. Personally, speaking as a politics student with extensive access to university resources etc., I am aware of none. ╟─TreasuryTag► sundries ─╢ 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The citation to the court case was meant as a refutation of your argument that "nobody has ever carried out any notable action with their Minister for the Civil Service hat on," nothing more. It's great that you're a politics student, but unless you're a specialist (as in a professional, not a university student) on the history of Her Majesty's Civil Service I would not expect you to be familiar with the kind of sources I am talking about. The fact that you are not is neither here nor there. I know less about the UK Civil Service than you do, I'm sure, but I know there absolutely, positively must be reliable sources (akin to this but more reliable) which briefly discuss the history and/or basic description of this job&mdash;do you seriously think there are not, i.e. that no one even knows what the job is or when it began? I think WP:COMMON is pretty relevant to this discussion as well. Now I'm really done with this but you can have the last word. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "Do you seriously think no one even knows what the job is or when it began?" Where on Earth did you get such a ludicrous idea as that? There are people who know, and reliable sources that state, what my GCSE results were and when I sat the exams. It doesn't mean that an article on my grades would be notable. ╟─TreasuryTag► co-prince ─╢ 09:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow keep. I'm sorry, TT, but I really don't think you'll convince AfD that a national-level post in the British government ought to be a redlink.  Posts that automatically go with the Prime Minister-ship, such as First Lord of the Treasury, can have their own articles if individually notable.  If not then it ought to redirect to the Prime Minister's office as a plausible search term, but that's a discussion that belongs on the individual article's talk page; things only belong at AfD if there's a realistic argument for deletion over redirection, and I don't think that applies.— S Marshall  T/C 09:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This post is not "individually notable" as you put it (or can you provide evidence to the contrary?) and should thus be deleted IMO. ╟─TreasuryTag► prorogation ─╢ 09:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think S Marshall is saying that any "national-level post in the British government" is notable. Frankly it's rather silly to claim otherwise, but obviously we've both expressed our views so I'm going to leave it there. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, so we're back to it's notable and anyone who claims other wise is "silly" again. ╟─TreasuryTag► Africa, Asia and the UN ─╢ 09:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you might be missing my point, here, TT. Notability deals in subjects and topics, not content. If the post isn't individually notable—a matter on which I'm agnostic—then it shouldn't have its own article. But the fact that it shouldn't have its own article doesn't prevent a redirect. And if redirect is a realistic option, as it is in this case, then the nomination fails WP:BEFORE, which says that alternatives to deletion should be exhausted before an AfD nomination is opened. See now?— S Marshall T/C 09:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to a section in the article about the PM, since the office is duplicated. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge it to Her Majesty's Civil Service since it'd fit nicely there.  D r e a m Focus  12:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * While I still think it's worth keeping the article, I would be fine with a merge to this subsection of Her Majesty's Civil Service. That's clearly the appropriate target for a merge, obviously with a redirect to the subsection left behind. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep as per First Lord of the Treasury. Codf1977 (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge In the same way that President of the United States Senate is not treated separately from Vice President of the United States I see no reason why this couldn't also redirect to Her Majesty's Civil Service since it's among the Prime Minister's offices. Mandsford 13:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per above arguments.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mandsford's argument, which is very well-taken. I'm relatively confident that notability could be established regarding the actual title, but that notability would likely be similar to the notability of "President of the United States Senate" -- part and parcel of a larger, more notable role. My secondary vote would be to Keep, but I think Merging is vastly preferable. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 18:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Slight difference is in the case of President of the United States Senate vs Vice President of the United States the two post are linked by the constitution, in the case of PM and Minister for the Civil Service it is by convention and there is nothing to stop the current or future PM advising the Queen to appoint someone else as Minister for the Civil Service. As for the redirect to Her Majesty's Civil Service - so by the same logic should Home Secretary be redirected to Home Office ? Codf1977 (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I certainly agree that that is a slight difference -- emphasis on slight -- although I can see how one could disagree with this. As for your second argument, it seems pretty clear from the article that Home Secretary is far more independently notable, but I can see the problem you are raising. Do you have any support for a merge and redirect? If so, do you think redirecting to the article on the PM position is a better choice? I wonder if it might be. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ bomb 18:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No I see no reason to make any change, the position is notable, I agree not as instantly and as publicly recognisable as say Home Secretary. Besides if there is a redirect to be made, if you read the article, it would appear that the position is more closely aligned with that of First Lord of the Treasury. Codf1977 (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Prime Ministership. Normally I'd say that all government positions are notable, but this one is for all intents and purposes a technicality to all the Prime Minister to retain jurisdiction over the Civil Service. Suggest adding a section stating the two posts that the Prime Minister simultaneously holds and why (but keep First Lord of the Treasury as a separate article because that was once a notable position in its own right). If someone finds more to write about this article, by all means keep it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although this is not a major area of my expertise, I believe there are historical reasons why this is at least nominally a separate office from the Prime Ministership, although the practice for many years has been for the Prime Minister to be assigned this additional title. As such, a separate article is warranted, although it might be a brief one and of course would note the practice of linking the two positions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Per all governmental positions being notable, First and Second Lords of the Treasury and the fact that Cameron could decide to appoint anyone Minister at any time.-&#91;&#91;User: Duffy2032&#124;Duffy2032&#93;&#93; (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Obviously frivolous and vexatious nomination per WP:SK. The nominator should be warned to observe our deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: as stated above UK ministerial positions are inherently notable. The fact that so far this office has usually been held by the Prime Minister is irrelevant. In fact Paul Channon was Minster in 1979 as was Roibert Sheldon . –– Jezhotwells (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This seems a perfectly legitimate (if unavoidably dull) topic for an encyclopedia; we're not harming ourselves by having it, and it saves adding a chunk of only semi-relevant material to our article on the PM. Shimgray | talk | 17:24, 6 June 2010 (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.