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. W.marsh 14:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian politicians[edit]

List of Australian politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Redundant to our categories. Created when there were no categories. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 12:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:
  1. Lead starts with This article lists all Australian politicians who have articles on Wikipedia which is not true.
  2. History shows it is not maintained, and is way out of date compared to Category:Australian politicians and its children.
  3. talk:List of Australian politicians shows a brief discussion of its lack of value last April, with no rebuttal.
  4. No articles link to it.

  --Scott Davis ^Talk 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarifying comment I have no objection to a list (or series of lists) with this title, provided that they are complete and maintained/maintainable and comply with WP:LIST. The current article does more damage than value to the project. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 22:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 22:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although it may well need some work. A list of obviously notable people. There is no such thing as a list that is redundent to a category. Jcuk 22:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unmaintained and potentially huge list. --Peta 23:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it was last altered 2 days ago. That doesn't say unmaintained to me. However, taking a closer look at it, it is a horrible article, that needs a LOT of work..... Jcuk 23:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was me removing a red link to List of members of State and Territory parliaments that was created a month ago by moving one of the incomplete and unmaintained sublists out of this page. That article was deleted under the ((prod)) process as Incomplete list of past and present members of eight different parliaments, 15 different houses, over 150 years for some of them. Better covered by categories like Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly and complete lists like Members of the Western Australian Legislative Assembly, 2005-2009. These appear to exist for each state. It had 32 names on it. The reason it was split out a month ago was in response to ((prod)) on this article - the only response was to split it into three incomplete lists and remove the template. It was given a month to get cleaned up. In the preceding 2½ years I count less than 5 constructive edits (all small) that were not disambiguating names already there. Over that period there were a number of elections, including at least 3 states and a federal one. That looks unmaintained to me. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I'm all for categories there is a difference between List of signatories of the United States Constitution - which this page could become similar to - and Category:Signers of the United States Constitution. This list needs work and promotion, not deletion.Garrie 23:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? There are about 400 stubs on Australian politicians; there are potentially thousands of individuals who have been politicians at the federal, state, and local levels in Australia. How do you propose that one could make a useful list that incorporates all those people. The only way to do it would be to make this a list of lists.--Peta 00:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about a list of federal and a list of state politicians (one for each state)... simple, and local politicians if appropriate (Lord Mayors are usually about the only ones notable enough). JROBBO 01:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Possible bad faith nom. DXRAW 00:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? I can accept all keep arguments... except that one. The reason I did nominate it was since I saw it getting mentioned somewhere as going up for deletion, while it wasn't. So I finished the process. Now, though, I can't find that... personally I don't really care whether this remains or not. I'd like you to explain how it could be a bad faith nomination, though. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 08:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment WP:AGF and WP:NPA! DXRAW edited this article 6 times on the evening of 13 January after it was tagged ((prod)). The first edit comment was give me a sec to fix. The other edits split out List of former members of the Australian House of Representatives (50 names) and List of members of of State and Territory parliaments (32 names). In the following month, no effort has been visible to make these lists complete lists in terms of people, or containing additional information to make them better than categories. It was previously considered at Talk:List of Australian politicians and WP:AWNB#What to do with List of Australians?. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons listed at the list of former politicians debate. These debates have got to stop; people should realise the potential of articles and do some work on them, rather than just deleting them because they can't be bothered maintaining them any more. JROBBO 00:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. List of notable people with potential to be useful. Should possibly be a list of lists for Federal, state and Territory politicians and other notable political figures. Capitalistroadster 02:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this article is kept or recreated, it should be made a list of complete lists for each of the 16 houses of state territory or federal parliament. Each of those should contain more than just names (e.g. dates, electorates, ministerial posts). I don't know if there's a guideline for whether they should be sorted alphabetically or by election date. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean. Dfrg.msc 09:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment Since it looks likely thst this page might be kept, I have replaced the link to the recently deleted articles with a complete list of links to the lists of current members of each parliament. The page is still odd now as it has links to 15 lists of current members, and 15 links to people who were members of colonial parliaments over 100 years ago. Others are welcome to improve it by deleting my addition if it helps the project. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:33, 19 February 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.