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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Burke family - Australian politics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Burke family - Australian politics 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]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 10:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete not enough members to justify a page, nor enough justification that the family as a unit is a notable entity. JJL 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable family, some of the literature I am reading at the moment regarding Labor politics in the 1970s suggests that the family as a whole had a status which was either respected or detested by those around it. The article's status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft Twenty Years 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OIC's suggestion that the family itself had some sort of status suggests that there is material that belongs in this particular article. Of course, if it is kept, it should be renamed in line with standard disambiguation style Burke family (Australian politics). JPD (talk) 16:21, 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 03:15, 5 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.