Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of prime ministers of Australia 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 keep. I can't help but feel that duplication is a silly solution to this technical problem, but the community seems to disagree. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Australia by time in office

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

Now completely useless due to the table at List of prime ministers of Australia being made sortable, with the exact same information. Done due to feedback at Featured list candidates/List of prime ministers of Australia/archive1. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 01:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of prime ministers of Australia, per WP:ATD. BD2412  T 02:46, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect would be more fitting than complete deletion. JML1148 (Talk &#124; Contribs) 03:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect Point this article over to List of prime ministers of Australia that would be best as people may be directed to this article for awhile.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 03:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The sortable list on List of prime ministers of Australia has the exact same problems that I pointed out the last time this issue was raised here: Articles for deletion/List of Australian prime ministers by political affiliation. When you sort by time in office, it dupiclates each prime minister's entry by election and is extremely confusing. It also creates multple separate entries across the table for those like Menzies who serves multiple terms in office. Someone looking at the list would be forgiven for thinking that Menzies served for 16 years, 38 days, when he actually served for 18 years, 163 days. In order to work that out in the sortable list you need to add them together yourself. In short, the Sortable list does not achieve what it sets out to do and redirecting this page would only make things worse. We also have the example of many other countries PM's and Presidents having separate pages for lists by time in office for much the same reason, you can't properly display the information in the main lists in Wikipedia tables, at least as they currently work. Superegz (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Politics.  Just ' i ' yaya  03:49, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 06:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Superegz or redirect to List of prime ministers of Australia. Fad Ariff (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect I don't think the issues with sorting the main article is actually such a problem that a duplicative article is needed. The main list can still describe in prose Menzies's combined time in office again without the need for another page that repeats a nearly identical table. The concerns about multiple entries in a sorted table can also be fixed if cells for elections and ministries are combined. Reywas92Talk 16:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You would also need to do that for most of the pre ww1 PM's and a few others. Also Billy Hughes, with his swapping of parties twice mid-term creates even more complications. I honestly feel that this exercise is only making things worse than leaving it alone. Its just not worth it. Maybe if you had 2 separate tables on a single page. The issue is that the list of PM's is primarily a list of individual terms in office, wheras the "time in office" list is primarily a list of actual people. They can't actually be combined into a single table. Anyway thats my thoughts. Superegz (talk) 07:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Superegz raises a good point about why the two lists can't be duplicated - unless that is rectified it's better to keep this one. Deus et lex (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - keep, per the arguments made by Superegz and Deus et lex. Axedel (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep - The technical issues raised above cannot be ignored. This list is on an appropriate subject. If it helps readers, there is no need to delete. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Superegz and MaxnaCarta. Wiki O&#39;Ryan (talk) 00:32, 14 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.