Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 United Kingdom Cabinet reshuffle
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 merge to Brown ministry. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:03, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 2009 United Kingdom Cabinet reshuffle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All the info is available at Brown Ministry Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 02:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Brown ministry. Redirects are cheap. EALacey (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge & Redirect. Any unique information should be merged to Brown Ministry and a redirect left behind. Other articles have been created in the format "<year> United Kingdom Cabinet reshuffle" and a redirect is a simple way of avoiding someone creating another duplicate article in the future. Road Wizard (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Merge or Redirect. Might be a case for keeping it if it had information on what events caused people to move and what the reaction was, but this is just a list of who went in and out. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Press coverage of a cabinet reshuffle is inevitably going to be fairly extensive, so there should be enough material for a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2009 (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.