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 delete. "Keep" proponents did not address arguments to delete, particularly the utility of this list beyond the individual family member articles and relevant categories. Chick Bowen 03:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beazley family

[edit]

Beazley family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists isnt a valid argument. Gnan garra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's a completely valid argument. The person doing the AfD'ing did it to every single political family of Aus - including undisputed ones such as Downer and Playford. The argument I put forth is that the subject itself, political families in X country, is a valid subject as per the US example, and that being a stub is no reason for deletion. Timeshift 02:19, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is in the afd guideline arguments to be avioded at afd. Gnan garra 02:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Playford family, also up for AfD is much more accomplished and numerous. These individuals are notable, their "family' in not IMO. Tiptopper 14:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only two members? JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Beazley family is one reasonably notable political family, not only in WA politics, but Australian politics too. Twenty Years 12:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The family is notable, but it isn't yet clear that this article would serve any purpose beyond that achieved by the two biographical articles and possibly a category. JPD (talk) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You said it yourself: the family is notable Twenty Years 08:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - How does that address the arguments given? JPD (talk) 09:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But the point remains that this article makes no claim of notability for the family. The fact that two politicians are related does not make their whole extended family a (notable) dynasty. I don't see any raeson to believe that such a case could be made based on the page, which is a mere two-item list. (Note the absence of a Clinton family article.) By all means make pages for families comparable in multi-generational influence in politics, industry, and society to the Bushes or Kennedys or Roosevelts, but not for every pair of related people who get into office. JJL 13:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:SYNTH due to implied political heraldic dynasty, relevant family information is within the individual bios. Gnan garra 02:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gnangarra - individual articles for famiy members are far more helpful and useful and can be linked Satu Suro 07:58, 8 October 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.