325:
silly reason to keep it since we don't as a rule link to redirects that link back to the page. If there was the barest connection between the existing article and the history section or there were a series of links to the article for which the history section were a reasonable destination, it would make sense. But neither is the case. There is no connection between the section and the article other than they both have to do with the
Cabinet and chronology, and there is no mainspace link beside the one at the article you propose as the redirect. -
416:. Redirects are cheap, the suggested redirect is appropriate, and, 8 hits a day or 10 hits a day, some people have been looking at it - this could be through searching directly, this could be through possibly inappropriate links to the article, but the fact is we just don't know which and should not be assuming the latter without data. If, at a later date, the redirect is getting little or no traffic, it can always then be taken to RfD.
324:
in the "See also" section. It seems more probable that those views come from a combination of the the editor(s) who created and built the article and from people using the "See also" link. The former is a poor reason to keep it because a redirect won't replace the private garden, and the latter is
297:
Frankly that figure sounds dubious. Where do you get it from and are you sure it isn't vulnerable to mistake. If it is absolutely true, how long has that been the case? And is there any way of knowing whether there are different IP addresses accessing it? Again assuming the figure is correct, so
316:, the article was just barely over an average of 8 views in the month of June, which doesn't seem much different from other months. It is implausible that this article has been reached terribly often from searches, which leaves links. It was linked from
169:
298:
what? the article as it exists is almost completely unrelated to the section to which you suggest we redirect. So what good would the redirect do for those 10 people who you say view that article every day? -
95:
90:
99:
163:
82:
385:
345:
129:
122:
86:
365:
78:
70:
184:
151:
441:). We deal with successive governments by articles on ministries, which tend to cover both cabinet and non-cabinet ministers. The content belongs in
462:
425:
397:
377:
357:
334:
307:
288:
270:
253:
231:
64:
145:
317:
141:
200:
This article serves no purpose. It only shows information which is better accessed elsewhere. This information is already contained at
217:
191:
216:. They are superior in every respect this one, which is hidden away, and has bizarre title. Nominating this, per a discussion at
17:
313:
434:
409:
321:
241:
157:
51:
320:
as a part of a wikilink for the phrase "government positions" in a sentence about the post-election reshuffle and from
261:
per nom. The article serves no purpose, and a redirect would serve no clear purpose since no one would search for it. -
213:
481:
40:
284:
249:
458:
477:
227:
36:
421:
438:
413:
280:
245:
177:
454:
279:
The current article seems to average 10 hits/day which is enough traffic to warrant a redirect.
393:
373:
353:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
476:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
450:
221:
209:
60:
417:
330:
303:
266:
446:
442:
205:
201:
389:
369:
349:
116:
56:
326:
299:
262:
470:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
112:
108:
104:
176:
386:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
346:
list of United
Kingdom-related deletion discussions
244:whose content is more appropriate for this title.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
484:). No further edits should be made to this page.
453:, but it is already there (and better done).
218:Template talk:David Cameron cabinet 1 vertical
366:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
190:
8:
384:Note: This debate has been included in the
364:Note: This debate has been included in the
344:Note: This debate has been included in the
79:History of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom
71:History of the Cabinet of the United Kingdom
383:
363:
343:
435:Cabinet of the United Kingdom#Historical
410:Cabinet of the United Kingdom#Historical
242:Cabinet of the United Kingdom#Historical
52:Cabinet of the United Kingdom#Historical
318:United Kingdom general election, 2005
212:. These pages are linked together at
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
322:Cabinet of the United Kingdom
463:11:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
426:10:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
335:08:00, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
308:07:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
65:19:09, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
398:23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
378:23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
358:23:26, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
289:15:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
271:06:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
254:20:23, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
232:15:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
214:List of British governments
501:
433:(or possibly redirect to
473:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
400:
380:
360:
312:Having looked at
492:
475:
451:Cameron ministry
224:
210:Cameron ministry
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
48:The result was
34:
500:
499:
495:
494:
493:
491:
490:
489:
488:
482:deletion review
471:
222:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
498:
496:
487:
486:
466:
465:
447:Brown ministry
443:Blair ministry
428:
402:
401:
381:
361:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
310:
292:
291:
274:
273:
256:
206:Brown ministry
202:Blair ministry
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
497:
485:
483:
479:
474:
468:
467:
464:
460:
456:
455:Peterkingiron
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
429:
427:
423:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
403:
399:
395:
391:
387:
382:
379:
375:
371:
367:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
342:
336:
332:
328:
323:
319:
315:
311:
309:
305:
301:
296:
295:
294:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
229:
225:
219:
215:
211:
207:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
62:
58:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
472:
469:
430:
405:
258:
237:
223:RGloucester
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
164:free images
418:PWilkinson
478:talk page
390:• Gene93k
370:• Gene93k
350:• Gene93k
37:talk page
480:or in a
406:Redirect
238:Redirect
123:View log
39:or in a
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
439:Warden
431:Delete
414:Warden
281:Warden
259:Delete
246:Warden
142:Google
100:delete
57:Michig
327:Rrius
300:Rrius
263:Rrius
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
459:talk
449:and
437:per
422:talk
412:per
394:talk
374:talk
354:talk
331:talk
314:this
304:talk
285:talk
267:talk
250:talk
228:talk
208:and
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
61:talk
408:to
240:to
192:TWL
121:– (
461:)
445:,
424:)
396:)
388:.
376:)
368:.
356:)
348:.
333:)
306:)
287:)
269:)
252:)
230:)
220:.
204:,
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
63:)
55:.
457:(
420:(
392:(
372:(
352:(
329:(
302:(
283:(
265:(
248:(
226:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
59:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.