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 - Per creator's request, subsequent content was userfied. (NAC closure by Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Sortable list of Attorneys-General of Australia[edit]

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

Article provides a sortable list of Attorney-Generals of Australia. This duplicates the exact information contain in the original list. Why not make the original article sortable? scope_creep talk 22:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - I'm a little confused by the reaction to the page, for a number of reasons (see following), but I see no point in wasting everybody's time, effort and energy, so I've moved it to my user space, and put a ((db-author)) on the redirect. i.e. This discussion is effectively closed - all it needs is someone to put the right ticks in the right boxes. My comments are:
- This duplicates the exact information ... - Pedantically technically, no it doesn't, but for all intents and purposes, for those not encumbered by the curse of pedantry, the assertion is "close enough".
- Why not make the original article sortable? - My personal POV is: To me, "That would seem like the sensible solution", but my reticence to have done that were due to my expectations of comments exactly like those of User:NinjaRobotPirate ... Hence, I felt that a non-contentious option was to produce a separate page. It seems I was wrong!!
- As for "User:Eduemoni's "Any relevant information should be incorporated into parent article.", I have no idea what that means and/or is supposed to mean.
- NinjaRobotPirate: May I bother you to suggest how I should go about seeking consensus for a sortable table? (Thanks in advance.)

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:30, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pdfpdf, when it is said incorporate into parent article, means the article from which the content fork was generated, in this case Attorney-General for Australia, Regards. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 14:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. It's a redundant content fork of the original article. It looks like someone tried to make the original table sortable, it got reverted, and then this article was created. Consensus for a sortable table should be sought at the original article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete - Per above and per nom. Any relevant information should be incorporated into parent article. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 02:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.