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 of the discussion was Keep--JForget 00:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Downer family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Downer 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 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created this parallel to Playford family. Is Australian political families not relevant on wikipedia? Requested more comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics. Timeshift 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 22:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

1. you don't delete a stub because it is a stub, it should be deleted if there is not enough sources out there to be able to expand to a decent sized article
2. I don't know much about the Playford family but the history of the Downer family and it's role in politics has attracted significant coverage over the years. Either an article about the Downer family would cover a lot which would not fit into any of the individual biographies or worse the material would have to be duplicated in each of the articles.
3. If debate is broadly about noteworthiness of political families use Category:Political families of the United States as examples. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Townsvillian nailed it right on the head - its a stub, it cant be deleted because its a stub. Deservant of an article on the family, three very important political figures in Australia, could easily be made to GA-Class. Twenty Years 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable as a collective subject, with plentiful material for an expanded article [1] Melburnian 02:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above for both this and Playford family. EDIT: See Category:Political families of Australia, more have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine. Timeshift 02:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable family. John Vandenberg 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep may be notable as a family. JJL 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AfD Cruft Twenty Years 13:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? JPD (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to keep this, as this family is well-known as an Australian political dynasty. However, I can see that the nominator's concern is not that the family is not notable, or that the article is a stub, but that it is short list that is not likely to grow without simply duplicating the contents of other articles. The question is indeed whether there is material that belongs here, rather than individual biographical articles. If not, perhaps alternatives to this list such as a category such as Category:Ablett family, or inclusion in a list of Australian political families should be considered. I would argue that this article be kept and the alternatives implemented, especially the list of political families, which would include other families where there is not enough material for an article. JPD (talk) 14:29, 1 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.