Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker Ministry

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. It seems that the WP:OR people comlained about has been excised, so what remains is the issue of whether or not this is a suitable encyclopedia topic. There is no consensus on that point, so I consider the debate to not have a clear outcome there. However, I note that this article is sort of weird compared to how things are done for other shows: it is part background, part plot summary, and part a list of characters. I note that Yes, Minister does not seem to have a "list of characters" article, and that that might be the best thing to do with this one. But that isn't a result enforced by consensus, just my own suggestion. Mangojuice^talk 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hacker Ministry

Hacker Ministry (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Relies heavily on an in-universe perspective; email correspondence is original research. Not convinced there is anything valuable or encyclopaedic here. Marwood 14:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep ... as valid as any other article linked to List of fictional governments ... "in-universe" perspective of Yes Minister is totally appropriate in this context. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs) 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment That list is for government bodies, which in this case is the British Government and not fictional. A better comparison would be perhaps "the Bartlett Administration" from The West Wing, which doesn't have its own article (despite being arguably more notable). Thomjakobsen 23:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument. In-universe perspectives should not be used for Wikipedia articles. I'm as big a fan of Yes, Minister as the next person; but this article really isn't appropriate. Marwood 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I have reconsidered (based on reminders by Some Other Editors), and I am changing my opinion to Merge (without the OR), which appears to be the growing consensus ... it's worth keeping some of it, but not in its own article. —72.75.74.236 (talk · contribs)

• Keep I agree that the email correspondance is OR, but I think the article is sound. I think it'd be better to send it back and get the relevent areas improved, rather than delete. Theone00 18:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete notability is not inherited and no real world notability established for this fictional ministry Corpx 22:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge. Some of the information in this article could be merged with the Yes, Prime Minister article such as the information from Jonathan Lynn. The Ministry is of relatively little consequence as I recall that both Yes, Prime Minister and Yes, Minister was based on the interplay between Jim Hacker, Sir Humphrey Appleby and Bernard Woolley and the Ministers were generally mentioned only in passing. Capitalistroadster 02:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment the information from Lynn is one of the major problems with the article! Until this correspondence is published elsewhere, its appearance here on Wikipedia is original research. Marwood 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge to Yes, Prime Minister. No need for a seperate article. - fchd 20:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Legitimate article and well-written. -- Thefreemarket 04:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. As the author of this article, I created it to parallel the existing "Ministry" pages that exist for legitimate Prime Ministers (e.g. Thatcher Ministry), and though I admit it has limited scope, it serves to expand the knowledge of fans of YM by delving into the depths of the series, by using the books. There is also an existing category of fictional governments, which this article falls under quite nicely. If the email correspondence is the chief bone of contention, I shall be more than happy to delete it. If the article cannot stand on its own, I would be content to see it merged with a currently existing YM page, rather than see it tossed out. LancasterII 21:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete the problem is not only OR in the article, the title is also OR - there is nothing here whch is not either redundant or unacceptable. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I compiled all of this information from published sources, and removed the information I gained from Mr. Lynn, meaning there is no OR, but only information deduced from available sources like the series and the books. LancasterII 01:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Too in-universe. I don't think that merging some material would enhance the parent article, which has just been promoted to FA. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely Keep. This page is essentially a extension of the satire of the establishment provided by the show. In mimicking actual "governments", it performs a valuable role in both maintainng the satire and in showing just how clever the series authors were in their construction. Keep this article as is, x-reference to and from the entry on the show, but don't merge this with the show page. It has considerable satirical value as it stands and as such deserves to remain unmolested.Ajm057 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia is not the place to publish meta-reference articles that "maintain the satire" of your favourite programme. I think the article is wonderful, but it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Again, in-universe perspectives should not be used for Wikipedia articles. Marwood 08:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, but. I am new to this community, so perhaps I may not understand the ground rules - BUT, with great respect to you, who are you to determine what is and what is not appropriate.Ajm057 15:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm an editor of Wikipedia, just as you are! And your opinion is as valid as mine and everyone elses - which is the point of this discussion process! The article uses original research (or rather used, as it has now been removed) and is written from an in-universe perspective. Both of these things are not appropriate here on Wikipedia (see WP:OR and WP:WAF). The page could be re-written from a real world perspective, but I can't see any establishment of real-world notability, and the article is primarily listcruft anyway. Most (all?) of the content is available on other pages. Anything that isn't can be merged. Marwood 18:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep now the original research has been removed. Reading the article it doesn't seem too "in-universe" at all. the wub "?!" 17:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ^♫ 19:00, 14 September 2007 (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.