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 --Mike Cline (talk) 00:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicts on the First Fleet[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A year has passed since I previously nominated this list for deletion which ended in no consensus. Since then, no improvements have been made to the article as those !voting keep suggested could be made. I still cannot see why we should have this article - whilst it is verifiable, it goes against WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO. Our policies and guidelines surrounding lists, for example WP:SALAT make it clear that every item in a list should be notable by itself, clearly not every person on this list was. Previous !keeps were essentially nationalistic, it would be good if this discussion could move beyond that and judge the list more critically. Smartse (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC) Smartse (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that at the previous AfD it was named "Convicts on the First Fleet" - I'm not sure how to get the template linking to it. Smartse (talk) 18:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AfD

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Previous !keeps were essentially nationalistic, it would be good if this discussion could move beyond that and judge the list more critically. Well done on ensuring this discussion focused on the article rather than the participants! A pre-emptive accusation of nationalism is a great way of marginalising those who disagree with you. Are any Australian editors allowed to participate, or are only those arguing for deletion sufficiently "un-nationalistic"?. Reading the previous discussion I don't see any nationalistic arguments at all, unless your definition of "nationalistic" is wanting to keep a relevant, non-indiscriminate, historically important and well-referenced list. That the list needs some formatting is not a valid argument for deletion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that wasn't the best thing to say, but arguments such as "but this is a list of the British first people in Australia" aren't particularly relevant in my opinion. My whole point is that the list should be looked at critically for what it is, rather than it being any judgement on those discussing it. Of course Australian editors can participate - just please cite policies as to why it should be kept, like I have done to say why it should be deleted. The list may be "non-indiscriminate, historically important and well-referenced" but that doesn't mean we should keep it - just because it can be verified does not make it suitable for the encyclopedia. I've never said that poor formatting is a reason to delete it. Smartse (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I do not think that this article should be deleted. Other editors have put together a good list, even though it does badly need re-formatting. Please do not delete. There are other worse, poor, non notable and even hoax articles and comments that are still in existence on WP. Cgoodwin (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But why do you think it should not be deleted, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Smartse (talk) 09:54, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "No definitive list of people who travelled on those ships exists; however historians have tried to piece together as much data about these pioneers as they can." line makes me extremely suspicious. No sources are used for all the names as far as i can tell. Reaks of WP:OR or copy pasted data dump from here Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am completely uninvolved here, but the list seems a useful base for future improvements. The deficiencies in the list warrant appropriate tags, more sources, and other improvements, but not wholesale deletion. It is a very interesting topic and given that many historically famous persons (such as Montana territorial governor Thomas Francis Meagher) who ran afoul of the law and wound up, however briefly, in Australian penal colonies, it is a useful cross-reference. Just because no one has cared to finish building the house yet is no reason to tear the whole thing down. Montanabw^(talk) 23:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: These names have been set in stone in the First Fleet Garden and surely this article deserves to be retained here. These people essentially contributed to the foundation of European settlement in Australia and some already have links to biographies. There is also a very high degree of interest in genealogy and history in Australia and indexed lists such as this are a very good starting point.27.33.237.1 (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Every person on the list is notable in their own right as the first European colonists of Australia. Not all will be notable enough for their own articles, but IMO all verifiable passengers on those ships are worthy of inclusion. I'd make a suggestion that there should also be a list of officers and marines on the First Fleet, either merged with this article (as a "passengers of the first fleet" article) or separately.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom states that this should be deleted for failing WP:NOTDIR, WP:IINFO, and WP:SALAT. I do not see how this list fails any of them. The list is not indiscriminate (there is an end to it), it is not a repository of loosely associated items, it contains no statistics, no lyrics, no description of fictional works. WP:SALAT says that "Lists may include people who are notable for a single event or activity and therefore do not have their own article, if they are of particular importance in the context of this event or activity." which seems to provide an exception for the more general rule the nom noted. This list clearly needs cleanup, but I don't see how the encyclopedia will be improved by removing it. And if it helps, I've never even been to Australia. Matt Deres (talk) 03:00, 24 July 2010 (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.