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 - Peripitus (Talk) 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia[edit]

Spouse of the Prime Minister of Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As the article itself admits, this "position" has no "official duties". There is little actual information other than obvious generalities. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:HEY Keep WP:HEY criteria satisfied by Matilda The fact that it is an unofficial role does not necessarily preclude an article (see First Lady of the United States, First Lady (Canada), etc.) However, this article does not provide any sources to back up the premise that the unofficial position is notable. We'd have to see some 3rd party sources talking about this role as politically significant. Then I would be a definite keep. As it is right now, the article is a bit too WP:ORy. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The First Lady of various countries occupies a de facto official position. She gets a staff, use of official aircraft, diplomatic duties, etc. There is no indicator of that sort of role for the PM's wife in Australia. RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added a ref for staff for the PM's wife in Aus --Matilda ^talk 00:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed my vote as keep based on your work in improving the sourcing of the article. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's not a noteworthy position, because it's not a position. Are we going to have articles like "Spouse of Speaker of the House" next? RayAYang (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has drawn enough better-informed commentary on the subject that I've changed my mind. Might as well invoke WP:SNOW and Keep. RayAYang (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have articles on the individuals who are spouses of PMs - a collective article makes sense. I believe it is an encyclopaedic topic, they are the source of news commetnary and books. For example Langmore, Diane, Prime Ministers’ Wives: The Public and Private Lives of Ten Australian Women, McPhee Gribble, Ringwood, VIC, 1992 . I would be more inclined to vote delete on the individual articles - eg Janette Howard who appear to have notability only because of their spouse - however I don't believe there is any consensus to that view. --Matilda ^talk 18:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per arguments by Jaysweet and Matilda. This is an interesting and encyclopaedic topic.Biophys (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - at first going by the title I was thinking delete, but seeing the article shows it to be encyclopedic and definitely has a place here. Refs pass it for WP:N.--Sting Buzz Me... 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not again. These are notable people; many of those that don't have articles should - Fraser and McMahon being particularly obvious cases. It's a relevant and useful list. Rebecca (talk) 00:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep along the lines of the argument put across by Matilda. I agree especially with her comments on Janette Howard; anything notable about her—which is very little—is better placed in this article or the article about her notable spouse. Annita van Iersel has even less justification; she is surely a non-public figure. Therese Rein and Hazel Hawke probably are notable in their own right through their own independent activities, although Hawke's could be fleshed out to establish this a little better. Not sure why Tamie Fraser would be considered notable at all. Standing by your husband in a photo does not make one notable. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A list of the wives of the Australian prime ministers is encyclopedic. If these women were never spoken about in the press, stayed upstairs during state dinners, never accompanied the p.m. on official visits, stayed quiet during the electoral campaigns, didn't dare speak in favor of a cause or charity, and were not allowed to appear on behalf of the Commonwealth of Australia-- that, in itself, would be noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Even though the wives of PMs have no official duties, they do have unoffical duties and, more importantly for the purposes of this discussion, recieve heaps of media coverage, including profiles. A list of spouses of heads of a country's government is a perfectly legitimate topic for an article. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting article to read, and interesting way to keep track of notable spouses (every PM's spouse is notable).--Lester 20:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, legitimate information. Notable people, and First lady-style articles are well-established. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 00:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: There are WP articles about the Spouses of the Prime Ministers of Canada and Spouses of the Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom, plus other notable First Ladies at First Lady (disambiguation). Dolphin51 (talk) 02:46, 31 July 2008 (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.