Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australians

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 16:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Australians

List of Australians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Random list of some famous Australians with no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion Scott Davis ^Talk 13:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete better to use categories as they stay up to date --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
  • update I am open to converting to a list of objective lists. See discussion below. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- Unmaintainable. Categories are already doing a better job of it. Longhair\^talk 13:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Way too broad. No clear criteria. Could potentially have millions of names added, most of them NN (for Wikipedia inclusion, that is). 23skidoo 14:20, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Apologies for not following all guidelines, however, the notable Australian's page is a subdirectory of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_by_nationality . Are they all being considered for deletion alongside this one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.134.146 (talk • contribs)
  • No. -- Longhair\^talk 15:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Any reason who not? Seems the "categories are already doing a better job of it" reasoning would apply to all of them, not just Australians. Tarc 17:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
      • An interesting point. Perhaps there should be a mass AFD. I'd support deletion if that occurred. 23skidoo 18:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: replace with a category. I would apply this to all nationalities. Peterkingiron 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete better to use categories as they stay up to date as per ScottDavis--Golden Wattle ^talk 19:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I would support redirect to a list of lists of Australians --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep/merge (see my comment below) -- This list qualifies under WP:LIST as being informative and in helping navigation. Many people find it easier to work with lists rather than categories. I see no reason to delete a list that is not trivial and meets WP:LIST as it makes WP more user-friendly (please keep in mind that WP would begin to stagnate were it not for the constant influx of new users). I have voted to delete lists a number of times (usually either due to triviality or the fact that they can better handled through categories), but I think the only effect of removing this list would be to make navigation on topics related to Australian individuals more difficult. Perhaps the list could use some cleanup by having brief biographical snippets added to it... -- Black Falcon 19:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Does a list help navigation if it is not comprehensive and is unlikely to ever be comprehensive? As the nominator observed there is no clear criteria for inclusion or exclusion. If you have a look at the politics sub section for example there is a scattering of prime ministers but not all, the inclusions are definitely random and a very small proportion of Australian politicians which have wikipedia articles are listed.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I confess I didn't specifically consult WP:LIST before listing, but I don't see this list as complying anyway:

• The list is too incomplete to assist navigation, and likely can never be made comprehensive.
• Lead section is This is a list of notable people born in Australia.
• Does not have ...unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources.
• WP:LIST#References for list items describes the requirements for references which have not been followed, and some entries' subjects are still alive.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 21:59, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response. I think it would be appropriate to merge this list into a number of smaller, more targeted, and thus more maintainable lists (e.g., List of Australian musicians, List of Australian politicians, etc.), and then to rename this list Lists of Australians, leaving it with links to all of the List of Australian "profession" articles. In response to your points:

• Although the list (and thus any list based on it) is incomplete, I think it can be made comprehensive by looking through Category:Australians.
• The current inclusion criteria of "people born in Australia" should obviously probably "notable people born in Australia"--we do not want a directory of millions of Australians. WP probably has articles on a few thousand Australians at most. Once they are distributed over 10 or more articles, their maintenance should be far less problematic.
• I think changing it to "notable (per WP:BIO) and born in Australia" would make it an unambigous and quite exclusionary membership criterion. We could add a hidden note to the article that only individuals who have WP articles should be listed (all of the "Year" pages (e.g., 1526) do so.
• I want to make 2 points regarding references. First, the article links themselves constitute "soft" references (the same is true of including individuals in a category). Second, the requirement for living persons only applies for "negative material" and, I don't think country of birth qualifies under this.

If I can get your support, I am willing to go ahead and split the article myself, add the specific inclusion criterion (notable, Australian, and politician; notable, Australian, and musician; etc.), and try to make them as comprehensive as possible (by adding notable Australians who are on WP)--of course, it would take several days and I would certainly appreciate any help ;-). I look forward to your comments. Cheers, Black Falcon 06:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Changing the lead to "notable (per WP:BIO) and born in Australia" would make it a self reference which is generally frowned on. Making a hidden comment about only adding entries for people already on Wikipedia destroys the suggestion that the list is important because it contains redlinks (a comment below). --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually meant changing the lead to "notable and born in Australia" -- I did not intend that we should put "per WP:BIO" in the article itself, but rather to clarify what I meant as notable. Also, I don't really buy the argument of importance because of redlinks--I think the value of the list lies in aiding navigation and being informative. In fact, I think all redlinks should be removed (either completely deleted or un-linked and left as black text only if there is additional cited information about that person). -- Black Falcon 22:30, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I don't support the qualification "born in Australia" - that means say for explorers you wuld include Hamilton Hume but not his companion William Hovell nor many other explorers and 19th century Australians. Citizenship would also not be a test for the 19th century. Are these lists only about 20th century and later?--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions. -- Black Falcon 19:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. After looking at this, it really comes down to case of redundant info. I think the rest of the "List of..." ethnicities should go as well, but not sure if this AfD can be stretched that far. Tarc 20:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. The problem with categories is that the subject has to have an article. In the "Science and Technology" section there are 15 redlinks, all for people or objects or organisations that should have an article. There is much larger number of redlinks there than other sections, reflecting the poor covereage of Australian Scientists in WP. A list is a valuable reminder of eminant Australians who should have articles. I'm inclined to weak keep for that reason. --Bduke 20:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment in response: the red links for scientists are mainly from the article on the Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists and are replicated there - a more useful concise list explaining criteria for inclusion .... Graeme Clark should surely be mentioned in the article on the Cochlear implant - he isn't ?!? - does that mean he wasn't a significant contributor or that the Cochlear implant article is incomplete? I am sure he would be much more interested in having his achievements included in the relevant article than a random list. Similarly the Stump-jump plough should be updated to include the Smith brothers, inclusion on the list is no substitute for not making sure the article which is the focus of their achievement is more adequate. The only other orphaned red link is Nathaniel Szymczak - in my ignorance I have never heard of him, he is not linked anywhere - it may be that he should have an article but a red link on a list that fails to explain why he is notable is no solution!--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Further comment: the inclusion of Nathaniel Szymczak would appear to be a joke - he is a 2002 graduate of the University of Illinois [1]. He was added by an anon on 31 Jan and hadn't yet been reverted. I note also that the page is subject to frequent vandalism and rather random inclusions and reversions - for example, the removal of Jackie Chan from the list [2] - the whole edit history gives a good view as to why this list is useless.--Golden Wattle ^talk 22:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I support the red links being validated and added to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board/Complete to-do. However a quick scan shows most of the red links are linked from either no other article, or only List of notable former students of PLC Sydney or other lists, meaning validation is non-trivial. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added them to the to-do list, but will remove Nathaniel Szymczak. --Bduke 22:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I added them to Template:Australia opentask which is included on the Notice Board. --Bduke 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete any 'List of x-nationality' is far too broad and indiscriminate to be maintainable (Vatican City may be an exception). This really needs to be a category. Nuttah68 20:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment: - there is of course a comprehensive Category:Australian people and many subcategories.--Golden Wattle ^talk 20:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per Black Falcons excellent argument, and for the record there is no such thing as a list that is better served by or is superceded by a category. Rather the reverse, as lists can carry far more information than a mere category could ever hope to. Jcuk 22:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, far, far, far too broad a list for my mind. Unmaintainable. Lankiveil 02:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep We have List of Galician Jews but aren't allowed List of Australians?? Either get rid of all the nonsense or none it. Not some. I could be convinced to swing to "delete" if given a very good reason and an address to my concerns. Usedup 03:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I raised the idea at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board to move this list to Lists of Australian people, and maintain a list of lists that are better defined. Currently this list as it stands has poor definition and will never ever be considered anywhere near comprehensive or complete. In other words, it's completely useless. -- Longhair\^talk 03:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• I would support that idea (to split the list), and I think the new title by convention would be Lists of Australians. I'm going by what I've seen in a few other cases (e.g., see Lists of Muslims), and apologize in advance if that is not the accepted naming convention. -- Black Falcon 05:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as is. Longhair's idea for coordinating lists of Australians is a good one. --Peta 06:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep more notable and encyclopedic than List of Pokémon. --Vsion 23:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Black Falcon. Mathmo ^Talk 00:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Almost all delete votes are from Australians, who would be likely to be the primary maintainers if this list were to be kept and improved, and almost all keep votes are from non-Australians (apologies to those caught in the generalisations). Is this an indication that the list is (or could be) useful to the rest of the world, but Australians know where to find better information? --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I haven't voted either way - and I'm not going to.

If I am looking for information about an Australian - I probably already know who they are and can just type their name.

If I am looking for information about an American - I am probably looking for information about "who was the XXX when YYY happened" or something, and for this I would go to a list of... article like List of Presidents of the United States.

I guess, Americans are in the reverse situation so a List of Australians is more useful to non-Australians than it is to Australians.

This article, should become a list of lists of Australians by subject / profession - then people who want to know who was the Premier of NSW in 1964 can look at a table on a list.

You cannot get that information directly from a category.Garrie 00:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment on the comment but there are more than 20 million of us right now (not all with wikipedia entries yet) and many more that have died. The argument is not against List of Australian scientists, list of Aust PMs, .... but the very general List of Australians - insufficient inclusion criteria, bound to incomplete, subject to vandalism, useless. List of lists OK but that isn't what this is.--Golden Wattle ^talk 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I can make it a list of lists in 5 minutes. In fact, I have proposed doing so above, but did not want to proceed without consensus support (or at least the support of one of the people who voted to delete). -- Black Falcon 00:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

List of lists supported by me - no problem eminently sensible, as discussed by Longhair above. Each list would be judged on its own merits but hopefully have adequate criteria for inclusion. Note Australian does not equal Australian born - we are a country with a high proportion of migrants.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, although I can easily create new lists, I'm wondering as to value of a List of Australian academics or aviators that contains only 5 or so names. I have removed all names from the "Architecture", "Politics", and "Sports" sections (leaving only links to the main articles). How about renaming this page Lists of Australians and spinning it off into separate lists where possible, but leaving in particularly short sections? This would leave in sections like "Academia" and "Law", which would later be turned into unique lists of their own once WP gathered more articles on Australian academics and jurists, respectively. -- Black Falcon 01:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It would not be too difficult to add more academics. I can think of several scientists where we have articles and more if we did not restrict the list to "People born in Australia" but added those who worked in Australia. --Bduke 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• I now agree about creating sub lists and making this a list of lists. --Bduke 04:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have no trouble in creating a new page lists of lists, but I think the debate about this list of Australians should be allowed to run its course, otherwise the two issues might get confused. Alternative recommendation is to redirect to a list of lists of Australians, a proposal that sounds as though it might have some concensus. --Golden Wattle ^talk 04:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that the debate should not run its course. I was just !voting for the final outcome. --Bduke 05:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I am open to the possibility of a list of lists of people. Some of those lists will be fine, but some will likely suffer the same problems as this list - unclear inclusion criteria. I support the lists complying with WP:LIST that have objective, citable references for membership and a realistic chance of being complete and maintained (such as prime minister of Australia#List of Prime Ministers). I don't support lists where membership is based on some subjective estimate of notability or on the existence of a Wikipedia article. "List of Australian aviators" could include every Qantas or Virgin Blue pilot, which makes it unsuitable as a list unless we honestly believe they should all be in it. "List of pioneer aviators in Australia" could be defined to only include people who were pilots before World War I started, for example, which makes it a closed list with a defined membership criteria that makes every member notable. An academics list must require a higher standard than "Has a Ph.D. and is employed by a university". Some of the subheadings will be easy to make suitable criteria for. Most will be hard or impossible.--Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are being a bit too literal in your interpretation. A "List of Australians" should not include every Australian who ever lived no more than Category:Australian people should. Lists on WP are assumed to be about subjects who are notable (see Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lists of people). The lead sentence itself states that "this is a list of notable people", so you've automatically excluded anyone who does not belong in WP. Is every Australian pilot notable? Of course not! So, naturally, they won't be included. I really don't see what's wrong with having a list of notable Australians. -- Black Falcon 18:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"Comment' This is where notability raises more questions than answers .... by what criteria? I suggest the potential edit wars and arguments about what consistutes a notable australian is a dangerous road to travel - I would support golden wattles list of lists - at leas there is a handle that be hung tighter and less arguable notability criteria... and it would get around the issue - next mentioned - SatuSuro 04:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not opposed to a "List of lists" (and think it can be worked out), I don't see why "notable Australian" is particularly controversial: it's simply an Australian who meets WP:Notability. Also, the "list of lists" option leaves the problem of people who fall in a category with only a few other members (e.g., Aviators). -- Black Falcon 04:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LIST includes "Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources..." but does not mention notability. I doubt that WP:Notability is intended to be such a reputable source. I support lists that have unambiguous and objective membership criteria. We should be able to tell when a list is complete. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, if this is going to be deleted, then you'll have to delete the hundred-or-so List of people by nationality subdirectories along with it. --Candy-Panda 12:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Tempting, but stressful. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete this and feel free to nominate any similar lists for deletion as indiscriminantly broad and unmaintainable. Lists of Australians, on the other hand is good idea but it doesn't need this as a basis to start from since it shouldn't list individuals. Eluchil404 09:25, 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.