Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Australian constitutional crisis

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. Some people want a page move; I am seeing a move discussion/request on the talk page so I'll direct people there Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Australian constitutional crisis

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Duplicates content from Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia#2017 cases, no need for a separate article as far as I can tell. "Constitutional crisis" has been used to describe the situation by a handful of commentators, but these are mainly newspaper columnists using hyperbole rather than actual constitutional law experts. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to section 44 as duplication of existing content without a sufficient basis for a split. The section 44 article already discusses all previous cases. Mélencron (talk) 12:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant political issue with substantial coverage in secondary sources. Clearly passes GNG. I agree that the title of the article is less than ideal, but that's not a reason to delete the article. Cjhard (talk) 12:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a huge issue in the news right now, with serious consequences. Should be the "main" article the subsection redirects to. Could do with a better title, I concur, but I couldn't think of one either - David Gerard (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTNEWS. Few sources call the current situation a 'constitutional crisis', and it manifestly is not one: the legal processes needed to resolve these cases are working fine. This can be covered well in the article on the relevant article of the constitution as noted in the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see how this is a duplicate of the article about the section of the constitution - indeed some of the content there would probably be better in this article. This article is about the wider context of the cases, the context linking them, and the actual and possible consequences thereof. As noted there are lots of secondary sources about this as a whole, not just the cases individually (which is how the the constitutional article seems to be treating them). I don't have a strong opinion about the title, but that isn't a matter for AfD in any case. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This article actually has less content than the Section 44 one, and much of what was posted in it was factually wrong. We'd be much better splitting out the 2017 content from the Article 44 article if/when it becomes to long than to have this duplicative and much lower quality article. Nick-D (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Indeed, my point is that this article is the better place for much of the information about the individual cases that is currently in the article 44 article, given that this provides the connecting context to them and deals with the actual and potential consequences for the government as a whole rather than just the individuals. Certainly some of what was removed from the article appeared to me to be sourced explicit speculation based on one of the possible rulings rather than factually wrong. Whether it was notable speculation is a different question, but simply declaring it "wrong" when the question on which it is based is what is before the courts seems incorrect and possibly disingenuous to me (although as I have no reason not to assume good faith, the latter should be unlikely). Thryduulf (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (For the time being)If the High Court rules that two of the Coalition MPs were wrongfully elected, then the Turnbull government would be in a hung parliament that would need the support of the crossbench, all of whom have said they won't support Turnbull. Essentially meaning that this could have a high chance to collapse the government, if the high court's ruling is otherwise and the MPs keep their jobs then I think it appropriate the delete the article.--Luckyowl10 (talk) 12:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Its a major event in Australian politics which has affected greatly the presence of a major crossbench party in the senate, members of cabinet, and the leader and deputy leader of a coalition government party. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 13:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is very important, several prominent politicians have been affected by this, therefore it has affected notable people. whether it should have its own article is arguable, but failing anywhere better to merge it too, i would like to see this kept. A Guy into Books (talk) 13:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least for now. This will only be "important" if the High Court actually shows any of these politicians the door, which is far from certain. Saying that this will have a lasting impact (let alone the absurd hyperbole of calling it a "constitutional crisis") is pure WP:CRYSTAL stuff. If this brings down the government or causes wider effects then we can come back to it with cooler heads. More generally, this was created as a WP:POVFORK of the section 44 article, and covers a lot of the same ground but in a much less satisfactory method. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:21, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - Several federal politicians are having their eligibility determined by the High Court, and the High Court will presumably be making an interpretation of the Constitution and setting new precedent. Therefore, on this alone, I think it is already notable and significant enough to merit its own article, regardless of whether anyone gets booted. There is plenty of content ready to be moved into this article from the "2017 cases" section in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia - the section is growing fairly long now and would suit being moved to its own article. As for the title, I don't know if it can currently be called a "constitutional crisis", a different title should probably be adopted. Liguer (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Liguer: I've moved the content over to this article. I'm surprised by the time you mentioned it, nobody else had done it already! – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 15:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's well sourced. It doesn't duplicate, it expands, which is within policy. Whether ultimately the current bunfight turns into a big deal or not, only time and/or the law courts will tell, but this is a valid topic. I'm not wild about the name. Perhaps "2017 Australian constitutional eligibility cases" might be a more appropriate name. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's good to have all these related issues in one article, but calling it a constitutional crisis as of now may be over the top. Zelpa (talk) 17:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Name may need to be changed, but is clearly an ongoing matter of relevance with material that is well sourced and does not naturally fall into any other article. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - per Luckyowl10. No comment on changing the name. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well sourced, and relevant story in Australian politics. Timeoin (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. This is a relevant story, but calling it a "constitutional crisis" is just creative writing by the author: no one is referring to it as this in the noun-sense. Where is the sourcing for this framing of the article? And why wouldn't it go in the Section 44 article - which has more than enough space for it? The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The information from the Section 44 article got to the point where it was more appropriate to move the info to a new page. As said above the name should probably change though.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely change the name, either to Constitutional disqualifications from the Parliament of Australia, 2017 as proposed, or to the name of the High Court case that provides the relevant ruling once this is known. There is now too much detail to be covered in the Section 44 article, especially compared to other relevant cases in that article, which never have non-legal historical details longer than a couple of paragraphs. This is a well-documented political event, and while it is not a crisis on the same scale as 1975's, it is an important, unparalleled moment in the history of the Constitution. Neegzistuoja (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename ~~OR restore to Section 44 of the Australian Constitution~~. This is vital information on a political crisis that involves major constitutional issues. All of these cases have been or will be referred by the Parliament to the High Court as Court of Disputed Returns. The Court will need to give s 44 the biggest going-over that it has ever had, deeply revisiting Sykes v Cleary (which is why I have just given that case a long summary). I too wouldn't describe this as a constitutional crisis: there is constitutional uncertainty (of s 44), but (unlike 1975) nothing that it looks like the Court won't be able to handle. If not kept, its content must be restored to Section 44 of the Australian Constitution. Logically, I would prefer restoration, but in an editorial light there are now so many of these cases - and could be more - that the series was threatening to become unwieldy where it was. There will be an occasion to add the Court's decision(s) to the article on s 44.Wikiain (talk) 00:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Wikiain (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See now the summaries of Sykes v Cleary in Section 44 of the Australian Constitution and the article Sykes v Cleary. Wikiain (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I change my Comment to Keep but rename and have amended accordingly. I think the article is developing well. Wikiain (talk) 06:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, topic is undoubtedly notable and meets WP:GNG with numerous sources available, problems with title is a side issue. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Given the size and scale of the issue, it definitely qualifies as an article under WP:GNG. One sub-chapter of another article can't quite capture the scale of the issue. An omission of this issue from Wikipedia's growing database of articles would be at best a severe oversight. On another point, people looking for information regarding these disqualifications will be more inclined to look up "dual-citizenship disqualifications" or something similar rather than "Section 44". Maybe the title of the article needs changing for the meantime but link the section on the disqualifications on the Section 44 article to this as a main article.Fremantle99 (talk to me) 01:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to, well, anything else. There is no "crisis" per se, but it's a notable issue. St Anselm (talk) 02:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to something I can't quite work out what it should be at the moment. It's clearly, as per any number of well-thought-out comments above, a notable thing and deserving of its own article separate from the one on the relevant section of the Constitution. I don't read it as a "constitutional crisis" just at the moment (not in the way that, say, the Dismissal was, anyway), and the point that it may not develop into one depending on what the High Court says is also valid. It is certainly a something, though, and a "fairer" name is never a bad option. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly coverage independent from that which can be reasonably be included in Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia. Power~enwiki (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely rename. How on earth is this a constitutional crisis? The government is still in charge (just). If the High Court rules Joyce & co ineligible, the government will lose its majority. This may lead to a change in government, but that may be only a temporary change pending the probable return of Joyce at a by-election. All very orderly and predictable. Less certain is the ministerial decisions made by Joyce, Nash and Canavan during the period they shouldn't have been in parliament. Maybe some things will be rendered null and void and will have to be revisited. But whatever happens, we're nowhere near a constitutional crisis. Just because some media person has so labelled it, that doesn't make it so. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is certainly not normal, at least for a mature, democratic country, for such a big number of politicians to be disqualified, to the point of a government's survival being threatened. Kiteinthewind ^{Leave a message!} 20:58, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename A very notable sand unusual set of circumstances which has been covered extensively. Renaming is needed but that is a separate discussion. AusLondonder (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An absolutely crazy political situation that has the potential to bring down the government and wipe out or atleast harm the reputations of large sections of the political class. Superegz (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename per JackofOz and others above. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should we invoke WP:SNOW and just call a day here? The top of the "2017 Australian constitutional crisis" article has been clogged with notices for a while now, and from what it seems here, it's not like there's much of an argument for deleting the article. Shall we close the discussion and mark it as "keep", so that we can clean {{Article for deletion/dated}} from the top of the article? – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 06:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The current results are:

Keep (including 'Keep and remain') - 22

Weak keep - 3

Delete (including Merge with Section 44 article) - 4

I'd say that 75% + of votes for Keep if conclusive enough to be considered consensus. MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AusLondonder (talk) 03:43, 21 August 2017 (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.