Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Minister of the United States (2nd nomination)


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 04:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Prime Minister of the United States
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article's opening sentence puts it well: "There is no Prime Minister of the United States." The article is a collection of witticisms which use the expression, not a discussion of the (non-existent) topic. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article is sourced, and I believe that the term is notable enough for inclusion. The fact that the term is used pejoratively or sarcastically doesn't change whether we should have an article on it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * None of the sources seem to be about the expression, they just use it in various ways. (p.s. Reading the first AfD discussion gave me a real sense of WP history :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. The mere fact that some editorials and commentators have compared the VP or speaker position to that of a prime minister does not mean that the term is in wide or notable use. The uses of the term cited in the article all look trivial. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep pending updating of the article to meet current WP sourcing standards. That previous AFD is really old (for Wiki) and the article is clearly formatted in an earlier style. I have no prejudice against renominating if efforts to bring the article up to current standards are not successful, but right now it looks viable and has a number of sources, so I'm hesitant to support AFD right now. Let's see if it can be rescued first, and bring it back here in a few months if it isn't or can't be. 23skidoo (talk) 14:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - article has some structure and content, example has hundreds of google hits. There are far more unnotable topics around at WP--Pgallert (talk) 14:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ah, another article left over from Wikipedia's younger days when it would take just about any contribution. After nearly six years, most of this remains original research.  A few sources are given to show that, at one time or another, some political commentator has jokingly labelled someone as being kinda like America's "prime minister" -- the Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, the Secretary of State, etc.  The rest of it is observations like "Today, the term is applied by people unfamiliar with the American presidential system of government, who presume that the chief executive official (the President of the United States) is instead called the prime minister (e.g. "Prime Minister Obama")."  That's why teachers use a red pen when they're grading papers.  Note that President of Canada redirects to the article Prime Minister of Canada.  While perhaps an intelligent article can be written about the subject, I haven't seen it so far. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Don't want to support or to oppose deletion, but I thought it would be appropriate to observe that its deletion has been discussed before: aside from the first discussion, which was five years ago, the talk page contains a significant discussion about deletion. Nyttend (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An article "having some structure and content" does not mean it should stay, nor does the "hundreds of google hits" mean it is notable. The fact that it is an article that has been around for the better part of a decade also doesn't mean it should remain.  The fact is the term is for a position that doesn't exist.  At best the title should redirect to the President of the United States article.  The term has been used, but that doesn't mean it should have an article.  There is not enough coverage of the term to make it a notable phrase that deserves an article in Wikipedia.  There is significant usage of the term, but there is no notability as per Wikipedia standards.  Theseeker4 (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, with proviso. The best two options here are keep as is, and redirect to President of the United States, since it would be doubtful that there would be anywhere the information here could be satisfactorily merged. Redirection would lose a considerable amount of information on the nearest equivalents to PM in US politics. If more robust sourcing can be found for those comparisons, then this is surely a keeper. If it can't be found, however, then these sections must be considered as OR and the article's future seems far shakier. Grutness...wha?  00:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Trivial expression does not warrant its own article. I see no independent notability. 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 08:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Non-notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Most countries in the world have a prime minister, so the thought that the USA must have one is surely not uncommon. The material is interesting and worth keeping, and it really doesn't go anywhere else. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt It is verifiable that the position doesn't exist. RayAYang (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a valid reason for deletion - we have plenty of articles for things that verifiably don't exist. Grutness...wha?  04:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: the subject of this page is nonsense. It is a non-notable, commonly made mistake that is the product of ignorance of countries not one's own, and has no currency as anything other than a mistake. It would be like having an article on the "President of Great Britain," the "Lord Protector of Japan," the "Sultan of China," etc, etc. Ray (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Office obviously doesn't exist but term is notable. Snappy (talk) 12:23, 6 December 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.