Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of Everything


 * 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The result was WITHDRAWN Toddst1 (talk) 17:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Minister of Everything

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

WP:OR essay. I have been unable to find any references to support such role. Appears to be WP:NN neologism. Failed prod after sole-author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

"Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I fail to see how I have not done this, and as for notablity, again, I feel it meets that criteria as it is a commonly used phrase, and as the links show, used around the world, and the article explains the expression. If it is not notable on the grounds of being a "neologism" (and considering the phrase was in use at the time of CD Howe, I'm fairly certainly 60 years old hardly counts as new) why not delete every political neologism, particularly ones that are in far less day to day use then Minister of everything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamNorman (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - at first I thought it was exactly as the nominator described, then I got to the bottom of the article, and started checking the references. Times Magazine, BBC, etc. are all using this exact term to describe these men. I believe that the article can use some cleanup, especially in the opening paragraphs, but the information is verifiable, and does appear notable. Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm surprised to say, the article appears to be well cited, and the citations appear to check out as reporting as an independent secondary source that the people listed have been described as a "minister of everything". This is the criteria for neologism notability as I understand it, so I have no problem with it. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * keep well-sourced. Jessi1989 (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2008 (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.