Deletion of Prime Minister of the United States (3rd nomination)

Comment: Well ... this survived the VfD in 2003 because the process, at the time, was crap, and all manner of turgid rationales were given equal time in what was, then, nothing more than a head count.It survived the AfD in 2008 because the closing nom dropped the ball, IMHO, and gave such stellar rationales such as "article has some structure and content, example has hundreds of google hits. There are far more unnotable topics around at WP," "Most countries in the world have a prime minister," "The material is interesting," "Office obviously doesn't exist but term is notable" equal weight with the obvious retorts that this is a non-existent office for which not a single damn source is proffered, reliable or otherwise.Of course, no sources exist which might discuss the subject in the "significant detail" required, and and the article is chockful of ,  and  violations ... if it avoids  outright, which I don't believe it does.  Keeping this once was a matter of blindness.  Keeping it twice was a travesty.  Keeping it again would be insanity
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:SYNTH||WP:SOAPBOX||WP:BULLSHIT)

Comment: per nom. & others, as well as  & . It's an essay, not an encyclopedic article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:SYNTH)