Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office


 * 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   merge to List of premiers of Nova Scotia. Merge other articles, as appropriate.  MBisanz  talk 03:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

List of premiers of Nova Scotia by time in office

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is purely trivial. Its only purpose is to rank Premiers by their supposed time spend in office. Such a page is not totally bad, if the main article is properly written, and referenced, see for example List of premiers of Alberta or List of premiers of Quebec, a sub-article can be split out for this purpose. However, the province does not provide an official list of premiers, with exact time served in office. Without this reference this article is pure speculation, and should not exist. The Parliament of Canada has been referred to on the article, however, its reliability is questionable, see discussion here. It uses a term of office convention where one man's term ends the day before a new one's term start, when it is commonly thought to change over on the same day. The Parliament of Canada is also thought to be a too far removed source to be a reliable third party source, with its inexplicable gap in the latest PEI Premier change over. 117Avenue (talk) 06:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Support, as exact time in office is difficult to nail down. The Parliament source is unreliable aswell. One only needs to check its list of PEI premiers for proof. GoodDay (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge into "List of premiers of X" or "Premier of X": the articles are so short it is unnecessary to have separate articles. Readers are better served if all the information is in one place, rather than forcing them to unnecessarily click through to another article. The content issues can be picked up on the talk pages of those articles. DrKiernan (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of premiers of Nova Scotia, and modify the table at the target to remove the period column and include start and end date columns and a duration column. That table should be made sortable. Mind  matrix  19:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not support the deletion, the data is available to accurately have the time in office. It is also a reference page used by people to know how long premiers have been in office. Political pundits and the media often seek this information and need a place to find it which seems to me to be a reason for having this data. Also, by deleting this you are removing work by people that spent time to research and put the information together. This work has taken people time to put the information together, it is not a quite thing to have written.Bernard (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What accurate available data are you referring to? As an encyclopaedia, we should always expect readers seeking information, so we should take the time to verify it, and ensure that it is accurate. There was no time spent on research here, these pages are just copies of the existing unreferenced articles. 117Avenue (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with either merge or reidrect as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the article should be kept. I believe that the primary concerns here are not about the article's relevance. In fact, I discovered it precisely because I was looking for exactly the information presented here. I had seen the nearly identically-constructed article about Canadian Prime Ministers, and thought "Hey, I wonder if there's something like that about NS Premiers?" Happily, there is! What I think that people are concerned about is the article's quality - lack of decisive references, fuzzy math (the question about counting start & end days), etc. To that end, I would encourage folks to take it upon themselves to improve the article, rather than deleting it. In my opinion, this article is relevant, useful, and more-or-less correct (Does anyone seriously suggest that any of these numbers are incorrect by more than a day or two?). It is a candidate for TLC, not deletion.AshleyMorton (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

As an option, the article could simply move to "year counts" (which gives them the ability to reference this: ) That would be a massive downgrade of the article, and a damn shame, but I bet there would still be people who sought it out and found it useful. AshleyMorton (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no improvement. As I stated in my opening comment, the province does not provide an official list of exact time served in office, just the one you have linked to, which you admit would be a downgrade. I see no point in having a side article with as little value as that. 117Avenue (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep "This article is purely trivial"? – What a a subjective statement, not based on any policy as far as I can tell. If everyone at Wikipedia nominated articles for deletion using  such rationale, we would soon lose all the content that took others years to build.


 * On a side note: is this how we welcome new volunteers to Wikipedia? If so, no wonder we have trouble retaining editors. I am particularly perturbed that it is Canadians who are attempting to remove content contributed by other Canadians. Not as if there is an overabundance of well written, well referenced Canadian content of Wikipedia, is there?

This discussion is being watched and commented on at wp:WikiProject Editor Retention Ottawahitech (talk) 03:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The main article is unreferenced, why would you rather further the speculation, than improve an existing article? 117Avenue (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep the articles are fully referenced - the source is the official Parliament of Canada website specifically these pages   . The website is written and  maintained by the Library of Parliament (Canada's equivalent to the Library of Congress) and is a certified research library in its own right. I'm sorry a few editors who are some self-styled experts  have decided that the source is incorrect. If they think so they should write the website and offer their corrections but regardless of their personal opinions of how to interpret the Interpretation Act re when terms of office officially begin and end the fact remains that the Library of Parliament *is* a credible source on how to interpret it and individual editors are not. Editors who are quibbling with and second guessing the source are engaging in original research. Mountain Herb (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Saying that the library accepts suggestions for corrections, implies that it is crowd sourced, like a wiki, and not reliable. The Interpretation Act is clear in that it only applies to federal ministries, it is the provincial assemblies and Lieutenant-Governors that determine their offices. If the Parliament of Canada is official, why does the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, National Assembly of Quebec, etc. use different dates? 117Avenue (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the Library of Parliament is the official source, I said it's a credible and reliable source. Please show the policy that requires only "official source". Your point about crowdsourcing is ridiculous, I did not imply that. What I said is where the Library of Parliament is a reliable source you and other editors are not and you're engaging in original research. As with any reference text if a reader spots an error and contacts the publisher they will investigate it and make a correction if needed - that is not crowdsourcing becuase it's not based on popular opinion but on expert review. If you notice a factual mistake in a reference or other non-fiction book and write to the author and he investigates, agrees and corrects the error in the next edition does that mean the work is crowdsourced? If so that means no textbook or encyclopedia can be used as a reference. Mountain Herb (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Parliament of Canada, or anyone in the federal government, does not dictate the time spent in office for a provincial politician. I don't trust the Parliament of Canada for stating such for the premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, or Quebec, why would I for these four? 117Avenue (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Library of Parliament is an accredited research library and a professional research service for parliament that publishes research essays on various legislative and parliamentary issues. You are not. You're engaging in original research and proffering an opinion as an interested amateur. I'm not saying the source is inerrent but it is a professional, credible, reliable expert source and that trumps your personal opinion. Mountain Herb (talk) 12:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Government of BC, Legislative Assembly of Alberta, Saskatchewan Archives, and National Assembly of Quebec are also professional, credible, reliable expert sources. I guess choosing between a primary source and a third party source, which contradict each other, is original research. 117Avenue (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge into their corresponding "List of premiers of (province)". We should not carry separate articles for the times in office; rather we should have one List of premiers for each province where the relevant dates are attributed to credible and reliable sources.   PK  T (alk)  22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per PKT.  Spinning Spark  01:00, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No preference between various forms of merges or keeps. DO NOT delete history and do not prejudice re-creation of the complete articles if it is done with the standards as Alberta or Quebec.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC) see below davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt: List of premiers of Nova Scotia already exists. Sets a very bad precedent for List of premieres of Manitoba who sat in chairs the longest  and other nonsense list articles that form the repository of "List of X that Y". Hasteur (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect or move all to List of Premiers of *province* or the appropriate section of *Province* but do not lose any edit history. Hauster's comment above is what changed my mind.  Any list of premiers, whether in an article or in a section, can be done in a table form with "time in office" as a sortable column.  This serves the need of having these lists available without cluttering up the project with unnecessary pages. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

*delete: The fact that someone is the head of a minor province of a minor state does not make them notable. Next thing county sheriffs will be listed on wikipedia. Leng T&#39;che (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Troll.  PK  T (alk)  17:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to extra columns in List of premiers of Nova Scotia etc. There is no need for this duplication. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2012 (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.