- 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 of the debate was keep. --Terence Ong 07:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- does not warretn an article CopperTopOnTheEdge 22:23, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it could grow into a 2000 word article. - Richardcavell 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The subject is clearly notable and needs an article. -- Grafikm_fr 22:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It's a perfectly noteworthy political position. Mr. Lefty 23:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Very much warrants an article, just as Parliamentary Secretary and Deputy minister have articles. Fluit 01:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Fluit. I created the article. It is very valid because it represents a distiguishable and known term and position. Theonlyedge 03:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a perfectly legitimate and rather easily expandable stub on a perfectly encyclopedic position in the structure of government, and I'm actually surprised nobody wrote something up before. CopperTop appears to be waging a POV deletion war against anything Theonlyedge writes, without regard to its legitimacy. Keep, speedily if possible. Bearcat 03:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all above, though I worry somewhat that this might turn into a dicdef. Mangojuice 03:55, 23 April 2006 (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.