Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/De facto head of state

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

De facto head of state[edit]

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was I can find no evidence that this VfD was ever properly listed in accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion process. Further, the results seems to be no consensus to delete (three keep, two delete, and one merge). I am therefore closing this. If anyone disagrees, please start a (new) proper VfD. Bovlb 05:29:32, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Redundant. As the only de facto heads of state mentioned are Governors-General the need for a new article independent of that one is not evident. Homey 21:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A series of contributors have mentioned de-facto heads of state but wrongly suggested that a de-facto head of state is the same as a head of state, whereas in reality it is merely someone who acts like a head of state, not someone who is a head of state. It is becoming tedious constantly having to correct articles and explain in articles and on talk pages what the difference is. This article was created to give a link which can be used to explain to readers of an article what the term de facto head of state means, and even more importantly, what it does not mean, rather than having to explain it piecemeal over and over again in individual articles. It is a perfectly valid article. It so happens that the principal examples of de facto heads of state are governors-general. But that is totally irrelevant to whether it should have an article or now. All this article does is explain what a much used (and much misused term) in articles here actually means. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply create a subsection of Governor-General and link to that? Unless you can show me articles where "de facto head of state" has been used in reference to someone other than a governor general. Homey 22:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because the term is used throughout various articles. It would be absurd to have a term used in articles and not to define it, except in a paragraph buried somewhere in an other article. Articles are created and linked for that reason. You don't bury the Confederate States of America somewhere in a history article, even though it never was a recognised state. You don't leave styles undefined except in a paragraph somewhere in the monarchy article. You don't simply leave the Irish Famine (1879) buried as a PS in an articles on Irish famines. You create an article about something mentioned and link it. Your argument is illogical. Your justification here, if applied generally, would require hundreds of thousands of articles on Wikipedia to be dumped and their information buried in bigger articles. That is not how Wikipedia works. 22:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Viceroy: "de facto head of state" is neologism and fails Google test - 4050 hits. Peter Grey 23:25, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: "Acting Head of State" is a legitimate term. Peter Grey 13:48, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
A pointless merge. A viceroy and a de facto head of state are different. The former has a purely internal state role. The latter may have an external and diplomatic function, but not as a head of state, merely a de facto head of state. And can people please stop using ridiculous google tests. Google tests prove that the Prince of Wales's surname is not what it actually is, prove a lot of BS about the Irish famine, prove Diana's so-called murder, etc etc. If you want real examples of its use, and not some joke count on google, see [1][2][3][4][5] [6][7][8][9] [10][11] The issue is quality, not quantity. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The "quality" is poor. "De facto head of state" is a contradiction in terms, and a controversial neologism. The Governor General of Canada represents the Queen of Canada - an internal role. Peter Grey 02:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why it would make sense to merge this article with Governor-General, not Governor General of Canada. Homey 15:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No so. The Governor General as de facto head of state makes state visits, signs Letters of Credence, accepts Letters of Recall and acts as chief diplomatic officer. You obviously don't know the role Her Excellency plays very well. FearÉIREANN\(caint)
  • Keep — it seems like a level-headed treatment of a long-standing confusion. The concept is clearly different from Governor-General, although strongly related. If it's too focussed on GGs, expand it. Bovlb 04:33:23, 2005-08-06 (UTC)
  • Delete In its current form the article is silly and superfluous. The "definition" is unsourced speculation. A de-facto head of state is a head of state, just as a de-facto wife is a wife. In both cases the point being made is that their status is not stated as such by law, but both wives and heads of state existed long before laws existed. The material is duplicated elsewhere and is focused on Governors-General. If we are to have an article on this topic, it should be aimed at rulers of single party states such as the Soviet Union and Libya, where the leader is not specifically named as the head of state and in many cases has no legal power. Pete 22:08, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Users may need to know that the individual above, Skyring (aka Pete) was one of the sources of the misinformation and misrepresentation in articles as to what a de-facto head of state is, notably in Talk:Government of Australia. This article was created to clarify the facts and distinguish them from the myth. His comments show just how needed the article is.
On a second point, Skyring was banned for one month for stalking me on Wikipedia. This included putting a VfD on a page I had edited, appearing on pages I had visited to leave abusive messages, etc. His ban expired on the 1 August. He began the stalking immediately again, and probably came here to this page to vote because I had written this article. Jimbo has now banned Skyring again for stalking, and the ArdComm is now voting on whether to ban him for a year for his stalking of me, and also his stalking of another user on Wikipedia. His appearance here was probably nothing more than part of his latest attempt at stalking (if I had noted to delete this article going by his record he probably would have proclaimed it the greatest article ever written and one that could not possibly be deleted; he has already done that on pages I have voted on before, namely always vote the exact opposite of whatever way I vote!), so his vote probably should be discounted. (BTW keep an eye out for anonymous contributors here from Canberra in Australia. If one appears it would almost certainly be Skyring as yet another of his sockpuppets!) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:18, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article, it describes what the "office" is, and what it does. Cannada is simply used as an example. If you want to figure out who the other de facto heads of state are for other commonwealth realms, do so and add it in. This page needs expansion, not deletion.- User:LittleBrother 5 August 2005 06:01 (UTC) (This comment was put on the talk page. The user probably didn't realise that it should be put here where the vote is. I've put a copy here for him.) FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Oops -User:LittleBrother Aug 2005 03:25:43 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/De_facto_head_of_state&oldid=1137773517"