Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minister of State for Security

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. Risker (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of State for Security

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

Minor position, created a less than a month ago, filled by an unelected nonentity. As a post, it is not notable, and no reliable sources discuss it specifically. PROD-tag was removed for no reason. ╟─Treasury Tag►Counsellor of State─╢ 06:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Color me confused as to how this post is "non-notable." It was recently created, sure, but it is indeed a real position in the British government and presumably Lady Neville-Jones will actually be doing some sort of work. The post is of the same importance as the Minister of State for Police, also newly created, which was not nominated for deletion. The nominator's argument that the position is filled by a "nonentity" is obviously a bit silly—the person filling it is clearly an entity and indeed someone with a lengthy governmental career including a number of high ranking positions. I don't think an argument for deletion has been articulated aside from the nom personally not believing this is an important job, but were it so trivial I doubt David Cameron would have bothered to create it. I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. Finally the PROD was removed (not by me) "due to lack of a findable discussion anywhere" which seems valid, and certainly is not "no reason." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument mainly appears to be WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:OSE. Can you find reliable sources which discuss this position specifically, rather than simply including it on a list of ministers who attend some committee or other? ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A quick search turns up a couple of things discussing Neville-Jones in the position. [1] [2]. Obviously this is a new job, but as you surely know it is a split from the previous position Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing. Will you be nominating that for deletion as well? How about Minister of State for Police? At the least they should be discussed as a group. Given that the position is new it does not have a whole lot of sources, but it's definitely a real job with at least some visibility. When Neville-Jones leaves someone else will fill it, and presumably the article will eventually list out a number of people who held the position. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be relying on WP:OSE to a greater extent than you should (as in, zero). I will review those other pages, and maybe nominate them for deletion, maybe not. But the fact that other shit exists is irrelevant here. We are talking about the page we are talking about.

The news articles you mention do not discuss the position; the first concerns the individual, and the second is about a policy that she came up with. Compare that with, say, this article about the position of Minister for the Cabinet Office. That's the sort of thing that's needed. ╟─Treasury Tag►First Secretary of State─╢ 08:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't deign to lecture me (or any other veteran editor) about WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm obviously quite familiar with it, and I'll point out that the sentence that notes "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this" is germane. Furthermore, the "other stuff" is particularly relevant here TT: Minister of State for Security, Counter-Terrorism, Crime and Policing is not just a similar article, it's what this job used to be called! If you think that article should be around, then it's extremely strange to want to delete this one and would be akin to someone arguing that Immigration and Naturalization Service should be an article but U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement should not (and yes, I know those agencies are more important than this position). I've said what I want to here and am going to let this go, but the general argument I'm making is that a position created by a sitting UK prime minister and then filled by a notable person who is "responsible for security and counter-terrorism" is inherently notable—all we need to do is describe what the position is and list who holds it in the years ahead. And as S Marshall notes, there is no way we would not want a redirect for this (it's very much a plausible search term), so AfD was not really the right route and there's no way this will be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, as per my argument in the AfD immediately below, except that instead of redirecting to the office of Prime Minister, in this case the option is to redirect to the post-holder's article.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We surely don't ever redirect government offices to the politician that currently holds them? And unless you can provide evidence that the post is notable (the onus is on you), the article should be deleted, obviously. ╟─Treasury Tag►inspectorate─╢ 09:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not obvious at all, as I explained in the other AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to be a notable office. Stifle (talk) 09:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously – do you have a single reference for that claim? ╟─Treasury Tag►most serene─╢ 09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously a notable post. You can search through the thousand or so Google news results for newspapers in England mentioning the actions of those who had this post perhaps. Or I'm sure its mentioned in school textbooks in that country, and encyclopedias. Dream Focus 12:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it's less than a month old, textbooks and encyclopedias seem unlikely. Though even if it were four years old, as the predecessor post was, I've never come across a reference source discussing the role as a role rather than to identify a person. ╟─Treasury Tag►duumvirate─╢ 12:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though it is a new position, it clearly exists, and as with all jobs and departments, it exists at the whim of the PM advising the Queen so to appoint. Codf1977 (talk) 12:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and a WP:SNOW I would think. Even with no knowledge about the British government, I find it hard to believe that a newly created ministry within the executive branch [isn't] (oops) notable. If this were October 2001, would someone have said that the United States Secretary of Homeland Security was non-notable? Mandsford 13:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From context, I would think Mandsford may have meant to write "... executive branch isn't notable."—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Thanks for catching that, Marshall. Mandsford 19:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, I find it hard to follow the rationale of the nominator. It is a named ministerial office, appointed by the Queen, In the government of a sovereign state and is therefore inherently notable. ninety:one 13:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider renaming to add the country name to the article title (other countries could have a similar position).--137.122.49.102 (talk) 14:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and identify which country (since other countries exist). A cabinet post of a major world power is notable. Edison (talk) 15:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NC-GAL, everything in Category:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom (and probably Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom as well) should be moved to "...(United Kingdom)" I suppose. ninety:one 15:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is necessary unless and until there is an obvious overlap - it looks like most countries other than the UK don't use the phrase "Minister of State for _____". Codf1977 (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, and I can't really see that it's worth it, but the naming convention does require pre-disambiguation. ninety:one 18:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May be this is a case for WP:IGNORE Codf1977 (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above, and second the suggestion of a WP:SNOW early close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Being a ministerial office alone makes the position notable. I also have a hard time believing that the "non elected" aspect makes any difference. The Leader of the House of Lords has never been elected and probably won't be at any point in the immediate future, however I don't see anyone rushing to delete the page.-[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 01:20, 3 June 2010 (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.