Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Canadian first ministers

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 delete. postdlf (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History of Canadian first ministers

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

Unreferenced and unnecessary ~~WP:LISTCRUFT~~. Links to provincial/territorial lists duplicate Template:Canadian First Ministers, and short blurbs about x province/territory are pointless when we have "List of premiers of x," "Premier of x," "Politics of x," "History of x," and just plain "x" articles. Madg2011 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is referenced right now but I wouldn't think LISTCRUFT "indiscriminate or trivial lists" applies to this effort to provide a overview of prime ministerial history per Canadian jurisdiction. Is this not in a main article somewhere? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Listcruft isn't exactly the right concept here but I think the idea holds. This article has an information component, which is covered with more depth in numerous other articles, and a list component, which duplicates the list found in the Template at the bottom of all relevant articles. It doesn't provide "a overview of prime ministerial history," it provides links to a list for each province and, for some provinces, a very short summary of that province's political history. It barely touches on the actual history of first ministers or the history of the role of first minister. I don't think there's any encyclopedic value here. Madg2011 (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose all the provincial histories, if referenced, could be used to flesh out Premier (Canada)#Role. In fact that main article isn't very long and needs some TLC and expansion, anyway. It's pretty ahistorical right now, and readers might benefit from some of the information that's currently in this list. And of course there is no federal content in the nominated article to worry about, anyway. So, while it's easier to say than do, I'd suggest merging relevant referenced content to Premier (Canada). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see this as particularly useful as constituted; each of the positions already has a standalone article at Prime Minister of Canada or "Premier of [Province/Territory]" which delves into the history in a lot more detail than the blurbs present here — which is precisely why fully half the sections here consist solely of a "see also" link to the main article with no additional content beyond that. I agree that it's not exactly listcruft per se, but I also agree that it's not exactly useful per se either. Bits of content here might possibly be salvageable by transferring them to the more relevant articles, but there's very little genuinely substantive need for it to be presented in this form. Bearcat (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:04, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- does not quite work as "list of lists" article and contains a bunch of unsourced original research. WP:LISTN fail as the topic has not received sufficient attention from independent sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist¹ 1 ¹ 21:04, 1 August 2017 (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.