Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frontbench of Ben Chifley


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus for deletion, but apparent consensus to rename this article to "Caucus Executive of Ben Chifley if it is kept. (Or rather "Caucus executive", per our capitalization rules?)  Sandstein   09:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Frontbench of Ben Chifley

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The article mashes together Chifley's ministry when in government (which already has an article) and his shadow ministry in opposition (which would have an article except that no one has gotten that far back yet) after he lost government in an unusual and confusing way. I've never seen them grouped together in one article before and it doesn't really make sense as an article subject. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Most of this is just excerpting the actual ministry articles, not sure why it should be like this. Reywas92Talk 15:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Re-title? Delete? Merge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  02:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: Stating that "shadow ministry in opposition... would have an article except that no one has gotten that far back yet" is simply untrue. Ben Chifley had no shadow ministry in opposition. Australian shadow ministries did not exist until the 1960s. This article substitutes for Chifley's. As the article states, Labor Oppositions had what were called "Caucus executives". There is an argument that the frontbench from the period in government could be removed or that the article could be moved to another title (I am open to suggestions) but this is the article serves the same function that any of the historical shadow ministry articles do. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No other article mashes together actual ministries with opposition shadow ministries in this way, and so it can't be moved to another title because the very premise of this article doesn't make sense. There is already a longstanding, logical and widely-used approach to covering shadow ministries, and that they had a different name before the 1960s doesn't change that (we can just use the other name). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:14, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It can be moved to another title and edited. It is possible to do both. Suggest another name and we can move it there and change the format to whatever is agreed upon based on the new title but suggesting deletion because the current title has a wider scope than it is necessary for the article to have is extreme.DilatoryRevolution (talk) 06:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There is precedent for not-Shadow Cabinet opposition frontbenches to do use this format:
 * Frontbench of Bob Brown
 * Frontbench of Christine Milne
 * Frontbench of Richard Di Natale
 * Frontbench Team of Charles Kennedy
 * Frontbench Team of Nick Clegg
 * Frontbench of Arthur Calwell
 * Frontbench of H. V. Evatt
 * Happy to consider alternative titles but these should be moved with it if so. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these were ever in government (with the exception of Clegg, whose article explicitly doesn't cover his time in the governing coalition), so the issue of mashing government ministries together in the same article doesn't arise. "Frontbench" is probably the most logical name in the third party cases; it falls down in the case of Labor because of cases like Chifley where a series of articles intended to cover oppositions winds up mashing government and oppositions together. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 05:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please suggest an alternative that suits your requirements. DilatoryRevolution (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Caucus Executive of" would follow the same structure as all the the other shadow ministry articles and avoid this weird situation. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That is agreeable. Thank you. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: Just to be absolutely clear, is the consensus to retitle this article "Caucus Executive of Ben Chifley" or is there a different title being proposed? Any future retitling could be discussed if this article is kept. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - happy to consider re-titling, the article is notable enough so should not be deleted. Deus et lex (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * My understanding is that there is consensus. I am happy to put the Labor "Frontbench of..." articles up for discussion for a move to "Caucus Executive of..." once the deletion discussion is closed. I can't imagine that there would be much objection to it.--DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:41, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.