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 There is certainly no consensus to Merge and those that would like to see a Merge cannot seem to agree on where to merge. Some say President-elect others Prime Minister. So for the time being a Keep is the only truly consensual result (closed by non-admin). RMHED 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prime Minister-elect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is and can be nothing more than a stub. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles. KTC (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I believe it could be developed much further because the media is using the term quite frequently. It also appears in a Wikipedia article (Kevin Rudd) - in the lead section. President-elect refers to the 'Prime Minister-elect' too, but in the context that the PM was not directly elected (but appointed by a head of state). Here are some places where the term is used: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

You get the general idea! Auroranorth (!) 12:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. as per above. What's wrong with it being nothing more than a stub in any case? Better to have a description on a seperate page rather than clagging up an article with explanations of terms. Sting_au Talk 12:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is a real position though, that is actually used in the media. Lankiveil (talk) 12:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Just let me look for a few sources about this term being used in Canada. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I never suggested that the term isn't (widely) used. My point is that the article will be nothing more than a dictionary definition. I'm open to suggestion to what can be in the article apart from "X-elect is a person who's elected to X but has not taken office yet". KTC (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually it can be expanded. A Prime Minister-elect does have some of the powers of a full-fledged PM in practice. For example, he can tell civil servants to ignore a piece of legislation he intends to repeal as soon as he is sworn in. He also has the same moral authority that he would have after being sworn-in, while the lame-duck PM loses all those powers. It's just that not being sworn in does not allow him to enact legislation. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 12:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge With President-elect, and move to some neutral pagename like -elect. No need to have a seperate page for each title that this postfix can be applied too. Taemyr (talk) 13:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above - seems a very sensible suggestion that does not invite copycat articles. WWGB (talk) 13:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with President-elect. --147.143.162.104 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Prime Minister (and merge President-elect with President too). Note that the outgoing Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, is still officially the caretaker Prime Minister until Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd is sworn in. See http://www.pm.gov.au right now, where it states:

  An election for the House of Representatives was held on 24 November 2007 at which the Coalition Government led by the Prime Minister, the Hon John Howard MP, was defeated.
  A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Kevin Rudd MP, is expected to be sworn in by the Governor-General in the near future. In the interim, media content is available on Mr Rudd's website. Any comments or messages to Mr Rudd can also be made via Mr Rudd's website.
  Mr Howard will remain the caretaker Prime Minister until the new Ministry is sworn in. Until this time any comments or messages to Mr Howard can be made through the following form - Contact the Hon John Howard MP.
  Archived material from the former Prime Minister's website is available on the National Library of Australia Pandora archive.

  --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Prime Minister of Australia, Prime Minister of Canada and other territories where the convention of "Prime Minister-elect" is established. Do not merge to the general Prime Minister article as the convention is specific to certain territories . -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a seperate article This is a distinct and notable position, and the status of a Prime Minister-elect is very different from that of a President-elect as the PM-elect is the leader of a party which has a mandate to form government while a president-elect has a personal mandate to govern. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The constitutional situation is quite different in a constitutional monarchy. Australia is currently in a caretaker arrangement until the Governor-General swears in the new Prime Minister later this week. The article, while still a stub, has already gone beyond a dictionary definition and is capable of further expansion. Capitalistroadster (talk) 07:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Capitalistroadster now more than a dictionary definition and has the potential to be expanded further noting already the comments in this debate that have sought to clarify the position eg Mattinbgn -> the convention is specific to certain territories that seems interesting to me - needs expansion and referencing not deleting.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As other people have pointed out, Prime Ministers and Presidents are completely different. The situation between elections in, for example, Britain and Australia are also different. There's a perfectly good article to be written about this subject, although the current piece has little meat on its bones. The 'slippery slope' argument in the nomination is a logical fallacy. Nick mallory (talk) 13:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Capital. Given the large-ish number of sources, i see no reason to delete an article on a perfectly good topic. Twenty Years 14:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Capital. Benea (talk) 19:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have now done a bit of work and note the diversity of consitutional positions - eg Israel and Solomon Islands - also inconsistency in the use of the term in the UK where Gordon Brown was referred to as PM Elect (by a reliable source) even before the elections had been held. Needs expansion and further work - I am not prepared to do any more til this debate is finished though. The work I have done shows the potential for expansion and that this article will not merely be nothing more than a stub or dictionary definition. I do not think that developing this article gives rise to the threat that At this rate, we're going to have every-electable-position-on-earth-elect as articles This role is sometimes constitutionally defined, other times by convention and the differences between countries is interesting and encyclopaedic. --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is enough in to justify a short but useful article, especially considering the variety of practices between countries and over time.--Grahamec (talk) 01:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - theres enough to justify the article, additionally a PM elect can be replaced by the party. Gnangarra 03:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge it does make more sense to be merged into PM article as its a transitionary position after some form of election with just a delay between being acknowledged as the next PM and officially being sworn into the office. Gnangarra 00:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to see some sources that actually discuss the word, rather than use the word in the context of a news article. Spebi 05:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - not all of the sources are news articles and for example the Israeli and Solomons Islands sources talk about the specific role (which has a constitutional basis) not just use the word--Matilda ^talk 05:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete This is a false terminology. A person is not elected Prime Minister. A person is appointed PM by the Head of State (or HoS represenative) in Republics & Monarchies. The correct terminology is Prime Minister-designate. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence, please. WWGB (talk) 07:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response - unfortunately I cannot resist pointing out that you hold a view not held by everyone else or at least of limited geographic scope. Direct prime ministerial elections have been known - for example in Israel. Moreover the appointment by head of state in other instances often follows party room elections. Google hits number only 89,700 for "prime minister designate" compared with 182,000 for "prime minister elect". The term is correct terminology in some instances being for example enshrined in Israeli legislation see section 14 of Israel's Basic Law: The Government (1992).--Matilda ^talk 23:16, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm way in the minority anways, but you're correct there are some PMs who get elected - Note however, not by the populace but by their Parliaments. GoodDay (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Prime Minister of Australia is never elected by 'their' parliament. Auroranorth (!) 09:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Prime Minister, the position technically does not exist in Westminster style parlimentary democracies (but does exist in some locations ie/ Israel). The informationin the article is better described as a subsection in Prime Minister under the heading "Prime-Minister Elect" with the information about Israel and a brief mention of it's growing use in the UK & Australia (per the links above). Shot info (talk) 07:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Prime Minister, the term PM-elect does indeed exists (see Prime Minister of Israel) & it is used in Australia. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this article is kept, then an article called Prime Minister-designate should be created. GoodDay 17:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, as long as editors don't suggest it has any applicability to Australia. -- JackofOz 22:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kevin Rudd is in no way the 'prime minister-designate'. He was elected and not appointed (like a normal minister would). Auroranorth (!) 01:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (preferably). But I wouldn't object to a merge with Prime Minister etc., as long as the info isn't lost. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There was a genuine question about this term on Talk:Kevin Rudd or Talk:Prime Minister of Australia just a few days ago, so there is certainly a need for it. The article is also well referenced. -- Chuq (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In a personal capacity, I'm appalled at the bastardisation of political terminology. But if it continues to be used, we will have to document this perfectly cromulent neologism. I don't know if having information on a wide variety of political systems in a single page makes for coherent reading, though. Andjam 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's simply not factual to call this a neologism. It's been widely used in Australia to my personal knowledge since at least as far back as 1972, and I'd be very surprised if it didn't go back a lot further than that. -- JackofOz 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I never heard it used in 1996. How many reliable sources are about the position, rather than using the term? Andjam 03:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, well-referenced information, and the sources from Israel and the Solomon Islands certainly shows that this could well expand further. --Stormie 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Very notable. Many references can be found. --S.dedalus 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Prime Minister. The post rarely has any official existance, a huge variety of terms are in use, some are used in very different situations (in the UK, to my knowledge, the main use of "Prime Minister-designate" was by two parties fighting an election together and indicating which leader would be PM if they won) and overall there's not much here that wouldn't be better put with the main article. The Israeli 1996-2001 situation is best handled on the relevant page because it's more akin to a directly elected President than most Prime Minister posts. Timrollpickering 14:45, 4 December 2007 (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.