Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of former members of the Australian House of Representatives


 * 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. ~ Arjun  04:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

List of former members of the Australian House of Representatives

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Incomplete list of politicians better served by the articles in Category:Members of Australian Parliaments by term. This article was created by cutting out part of List of Australian politicians when that page was proposed for deletion. Scott Davis Talk 13:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Scott Davis Talk 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this list was created (in List of Australian politicians) before Wikipedia had a working category system, and appears to be no longer maintained. --Scott Davis Talk 13:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons that Scott Davis gives, but the categories need cleaning up. There is no category of "Former Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives" - not sure there should be - just commenting. Just looking at the first two entries, Antony is in Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives and in "Category:Members of the Australian House of Representatives for XXX". Barton is only in the latter. --Bduke 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete ...maelgwntalk 01:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. This list appears to be superfluous as the politicians listed all have articles already. However, I would be fairly sure that not all members of the House of Representatives since 1901 do not have articles and there might be a case for a list to guide our efforts in article creation. However, that would require someone doing the work. Capitalistroadster 02:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Such a list belongs in a project sub-page not in article space.Garrie 22:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Lankiveil 02:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep and expand to a comprehensive list. I'm sick of articles like this being deleted for no valid reason - this could be a comprehensive list of all people who have ever served in the Australian Parliament, complete with their electorate, dates served, ministerial positions (if any), elections fought, etc. It could easily be a Featured List. Let's realise the potential of articles like these instead of nominating them willy-nilly for deletion, where you can't get this information back. JROBBO 08:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the potential for an article with this title to be useful. I am disputing that the current article is either useful in its current state, or more useful than an empty page as a starting point for a useful list. It has less than 10% of the people eligible to be in the list, and at least one who should not be on it. Prior to this AFD, nobody had shown any interest in attempting to complete, update, or maintain the list, which contains one person who will retire from the senate in 2008. See Garrie and capitalistroadster's comments above. I did not respond to your message earlier as I didn't realise you felt it needed a response. --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JROBBO above. There are some excellent lists around and a list of former members can contain summarised information that categories cannot. Compare it to List of signatories of the United States Constitution - closed membership, contains nothing that cannot be in either the article United States Constitution or a category, Category:Signers of the United States Constitution. However, the article identifies why each person was there - the category does not.Garrie 22:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per JROBBO DXRAW 06:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a collection of everything that is or has been. Usedup 09:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? That's not a reason for deletion. Please provide a reason why this list should or should not be deleted. JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT Wikipedia articles are not...Mere collections of internal links --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. As it is now, the list is inferior to the category.  Someone can always create a good list another day. John Vandenberg 13:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not just leave it and let it be expanded? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Because in its current state it is incomplete, misleading and reflects badly on the project. It is not a suitable starting point to make a good article with this title. --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete --Peta 23:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote - can you please provide a reason? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - is anyone going to bother replying to my concerns, or is this just another of those debates where people write comments then don't bother to check back? JROBBO 00:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect many people are watching, but until that post and the post on my talk page, nobody knew you wanted a reply. You had not asked any questions. --Scott Davis Talk 06:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not all lists of notable people are encyclopedic. The scope of this list is so broad as to be indiscriminant.  The relevant information is better presented in articles on the individual members or more focussed lists by contituency, parliament, or state.  No information would be lost in this deletion because as it stands it is fulkly redundant to the category.  I.e. just an alphabetic list of names.  Eluchil404 09:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.