Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President of Australia

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 delete. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 05:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

President of Australia

President of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Australia doesn't have a president. Also, as Australia is a constitutional monarchy, this page is potentially misleading people because "president" is associated with republics worldwide because of the influence of the United States 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly ludicrous and completely made up. Mccapra (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ridiculous invented title. There is no Emperor of Australia for the same reason. Davidelit (Talk) 00:13, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redirect to Republicanism in Australia, per Devonian Wombat, below. This title doesn't exist, and Wikipedia isn't in the business of creating the idea that such a title does exist. Also, there are several other articles of this kind that should also probably be deleted for the same reason. --Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 07:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no such person, so this article is confusing. --Bduke (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not a viable search term worthy of its own DAB page, as Australia does not have a president nor is it a republic. Liamyangll (talk to me!) 08:56, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Republicanism in Australia, while Australia does not have a President the idea of it getting one has often been raised, and there has been a substantial amount of political and academic debate around what powers this President might have and the like. This isn't enough for it to have an independent article, but it is a viable search term. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, that is a great idea. I'm changing my !vote, since the article you linked says that the plan would be to replace the Queen with a President. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think a redirect to Republicanism in Australia would be confusing because there is already the President of the Senate (Australia) (an actual office, not a hypothetical one). 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an argument for keeping the disambiguation page, since you are talking about multiple plausible targets. Dekimasuよ! 23:11, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete made up title, implausible suggested redirects. Dronebogus (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect in the worst case; this is a helpful navigational page and not an implausible search term, as it receives 1000 hits a month. I have cleaned up the dab and removed the entry for the monarchy, which is not a valid target. Dekimasuよ! 23:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Republicanism in Australia per Devonian Wombat; there's a large body of research and comment on the (envisaged) office.Some examples: Linda Burney (current Federal Minister for Indigenous Australians) in 2009: "I have every hope that the first President of Australia will be one of the people of the First Nations."^[1] "No president of Australia could step into the lineage of the monarchy and be certain of his or her present position as part of the heritage of conflict and restraint which has produced the constitutional monarchy."^[2] "The Australian Presidency"^[3] "As Gough Whitlam (1994) recently remarked, 'there is no surer way of absolutely guaranteeing that the President of Australia will always be a party politician than by making the presidency directly elected.'"^[4] There's even discussion as early as 1918 of a President of Australia.^[5]

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most foreigners searching for "President of Australia" are probably looking for the head of state (Governor General/the Queen) and/or the head of government (Prime Minister), so this redirect would be inappropriate and confusing. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 07:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hazarding a guess about the intention of hypothetical "foreign" searchers cannot outweigh reliable sourcing. Even if one was to accept this reasoning, given a central issue of Republicanism in Australia is the head of state, the redirection would correct their hypothetical misunderstanding. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 10:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Goldsztajn, none of those sources are actually indicative that that would be the title of a republican head of state - they are merely what they conceive that to be. The title has not been decided on and there should not be a page about it. Deus et lex (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's three problems with this argument. First, mentioning that since the office does not exist therefore we should not have a page is irrelevant, this encyclopedia is full of fictional, non-existent concepts. Second, there is clear consensus here that an article should not exist, the question is whether there should be a redirect. A redirect in this case would indicate that we consider the concept of the President of Australia a not implausible search term related specifically to a subject which does have an article, Republicanism in Australia. Third, the overwhelming preponderance of sources speak of the head of state of a proposed Australian Republic as a president. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the redirect is inappropriate as there is no decision that the head of state in a republican Australia would even be called the President. Deus et lex (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "A proposed law: To alter the Constitution to establish the Commonwealth of Australia as a republic with the Queen and Governor-General being replaced by a President appointed by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Commonwealth Parliament. Do you approve this proposed alteration?" Other than the 1000s of sources available mentioning a President, the entire country voted in a referendum which explicitly mentioned a president. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • And that referendum didn't pass, so it's no more than a hypothetical about what a future proposal could encompass. Deus et lex (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, that's why we're proposing to redirect this instead of creating a massive article on it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this title does not exist as of this vote and is therefore misleading. A redirect is not right here because it implies an equivalence (if to Prime Minister). David Stargell (talk) 23:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a DAB page, not an article, it is a navigational tool. The page is not an implausible target. And it does not mislead readers to help them navigate to the article they are actually looking for. It's not like this is an article on a non-existent office. --Privybst (talk) 11:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:D it does not disambiguate and users are unlikely to need this dab to navigate. Lightburst (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2022 (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.