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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cabinet rank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:DICDEF. The substantive content of this article is about the supposed "ranking" of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom, based on this list of Cabinet members. All references in the article are to the Daily Mail, which is not the most reliable of sources. There do not appear to be any references which support the Mail's thesis that the list has any official significance, and, as such, I would consider it to be misleading (if not downright inaccurate) content. Delete as nominator, without predjudice to mentioning the Mail's attempt at a species of Kremlinology in the Daily Mail article. Tevildo (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is not a word or dictionary style entry. The idea that there is a formal ranking of the minsters in the Cabinet is not an invention of the Daily Mail. See Establishing the order of precedence in Cabinet for corroboration. See also WP:BEFORE as there are obvious alternatives to deletion. Warden (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Hennessy's book is a much better source than the Mail (anything is a much better source than the Mail), and, as a minimum, we should change the sources in the article to reflect this. However, he only cites three ministers over the course of the 20th century who have expressed concerns about their position on the list; more importantly, he does not establish that the list has any official significance. Most of the substantive content of the article as it stands, derived from the Mail, should go (in my opinion), perhaps to be replaced with a summary of Hennessy's text. Will that leave us with enough for a full article? Tevildo (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Category:National cabinets Shows there's likely more that could be covered there. Dru of Id (talk) 17:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:OUTCOMES. It's a weak article -- little more than a stub -- but notable. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.