Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States[edit]

List of Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article serves no purpose, as the individual lists aren't 'Representatives of the Queen for Commonwealth Member States', nor is there even a title of 'Queen of the Commonwealth Member States'. When asked what the purpose was, I got no reply.

The list seems to be a combination of Governors-General (i.e. some of the representatives of the Queen in Commonwealth realms, but not all of them, because Lieutenant Governors are also direct representatives of the monarch), Presidents of republics (who do not represent the Queen in any way at all), and High Commissioners (who represent the British government, not the Queen).

We already have an article called List of Commonwealth Heads of Government, and an article called List of heads of missions from the United Kingdom (albeit out of date). These, I believe, are the articles that ought to exist. This list is mumbo-jumbo, and ought to be deleted. Bastin 20:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep. The Queen's ruling agent in Commonwealth countries is a definable category of persons that warrants a list. List of Commonwealth Heads of Government doesn't cut it at all, because the Queen's representative is not a head of government (they're the representative of the Head of State). List of heads of missions from the United Kingdom doesn't either because that refers to the UK's diplomatic representatives as opposed to the Queen's ruling agents. However, in my view many countries should be deleted from this list (such as Malaysia, Pakistan, India) because the Queen is not their Head of State and is in no way the representative of anything in respect of that country. But there are many non-republics who have the Queen as their Head of State, such as Australia and New Zealand. It is useful to have a list of those countries to find out who the governing agents of the Queen are in those countries. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion sorting
  • Comment While the linkage may be relevant for countries such as Australia etc, the President is not the queen's representative in India, Pakistan, etc. The article needs some referencing to actually say what it does and all these "member of the commonwealth, so the head of state is the queen's representative" items should be deleted; otherwise the article as a whole should go. —SpacemanSpiff 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mkativerata's reasoning, but do the fixes suggested by SpacemanSpiff. Also consider carefully whether the list of names is practical to maintain. It might be necessary to just list the positions. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the list stands at present, it is misleading and verging on OR. The list includes - as representatives of the British monarch - the Heads of State of republics such as India, South Africa etc. whose HoS have no ties whatsoever to the British monarchy, regardless of their former status as British colonies. It even includes the HoS of countries such as Mozambique and Rwanda who were never ever colonies under the British crown! The Commonwealth is a free association of nations with no special role for Britain and the Queen's (symbolic) role as Head of the Commonwealth is completely separate from the governance arrangements of its member countries. I dare someone to telll Jacob Zuma that he is the Queen's representative in South Africa!!! There may be a place for a list of Vice-regal representatives of the current British monarch but this list would need almost a complete rewrite to allow this to happen. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. How about, in addition to deleting the likes of India, a move to List of current Governors-General of the Commonwealth realms? --Mkativerata (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As it stands, this article is clearly inappropriate for the reasons given. However, a move to List of current Governors-General of the Commonwealth realms would be two restrictive. In Australia the Governors of the various states and the Administrator of the Northern Territory are direct representatives of the Queen, so they should be included. I suggest it be moved to List of Representatives of the Queen in Commonwealth Member States and all other positions and people, Presidents, High Commissioners and so on, be removed. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the two proposed lists are mutually exclusive; we can have both. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apart from the laughable South African entry, there is some debate as to whether the Queen can properly be called the "Head of State" in certain Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zeland and Canada - Head of state#Delegation states that since 2005, all all letters of credence solely address the Governor-General of those countries. See also Government of Australia#Head of state. StAnselm (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen of Canada is Elizabeth II. I cannot believe anyone could try to challenge that fact. Outback the koala (talk) 01:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Queen is legally the head of state - her image appears on every Australian coin, we have "Crown Prosecutors" and cases like "R v defendant", and section 1 of the Australian Constitution is rather clear: "The legislative power of the Commonwealth shall be vested in a Federal Parliament, which shall consist of the Queen, a Senate, and a House of Representatives" ... note, no reference to the Governor-General, he doesn't get a look-in until section 61: "The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative." I only know the Australian situation but I assume that of the other two countries is similar (and I know they both have the Queen on their coins). Orderinchaos 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that it is debatable, and, indeed, debated. The first article says, This wording implies that the government of Canada, as least during the premiership of Paul Martin, regarded the Governor General as the Canadian Head of State. The second says, In 2009 Prime Minister Kevin Rudd described the Governor-General as the Australian head of state. Now, they may both be wrong, but it does mean that the entire column "Head of State" in this article is not neutral wording. StAnselm (talk) 03:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I do not see any alternative way of phrasing it. Can you? Outback the koala (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Bduke's proposition to rename "for" to "in", and get rid of the obvious non-members of this group. Orderinchaos 01:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's an incomplete list that needs to be expanded. No reason to delete, but would support a move to a better title. It also needs a clear inclusion criteria, which it is lacking now. The rest per Mkativerata. Outback the koala (talk) 01:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Discussion of "Head of State" is a red herring. This article is about representatives of the Queen. Commonwealth countries that are republics do not have representatives of the Queen. The Australian Governor-General is the Queen's representative, whether she is Head of State or not. The column of Heads of State should go along with people who do not represent the Queen. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I think we should just delete the column. Next issue: what is the justification for calling Mwai Kibaki, for example, the Queen's representative in Kenya? My main concern with this article is that when we get rid of all the unreferenced material, there'll be very little left. StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a useful list, but I would agree that it would be a good idea to to rename "for" to "in", and then continue further discussion about the particulars on the article's talk page, and if necessary pursue some form of dispute resolution to come to consensus building. -- Cirt (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that it's been so radically altered, it's fine. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator changes to keep. As stated, User:StAnselm and I have radically changed the article per the suggestions above. Now that there is a clear definition of what the roles it lists are, it is useful to the project. Bastin 19:46, 27 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Representatives_of_the_Queen_for_Commonwealth_Member_States&oldid=1076624365"