Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional Australian politicians

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. - Mailer Diablo 17:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Australian politicians

I am completing an incomplete nomination. Abstain Iamunknown 19:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator - originally part of mass nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. These are indiscriminate lists drawing largely unrelated articles from a wide variety of genres, difficult if not impossible to maintain and will never aproach completeness. Otto4711 23:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\^talk 00:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Useful summary of a well-defined topic in a large range of fiction. Passes WP:LIST as a well-annotated list. DXRAW 01:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what policy does the article breach or standard does it not meet ? if this works as a list of information in other articles the I can't see what the issue is. Is there some consensus on the threashold for lists to be included that this is failing against ? Peripitus (Talk) 01:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily defined profession. Messiness is not grounds for deletion. --Hemlock Martinis 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. This is a relisting and lacks an explanation for deletion. Keep as per extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional actors. -- User:Docu
- The only reason this is a "relisting" is because someone took it upon him/herself to break up an existing nomination. It is disingenuous in the extreme to suggest closure on that basis and quite frankly your cherry-picking the listings you want speedily closed does not speak well of your motivation. The reason for the nomination is right there in my comments as nominator and stating that there is no explanation is just flat out not true. As for the discussion at the previous nom, a number of those voicing opinions called for keep/close only because of the mass nature of the nomination. It's ridiculous to claim that those procedural !votes constitute consensus on every article individually. Otto4711 05:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Otto4711, which policy/guideline etc.. is this list breaching ? Are you claiming that all of these lists are indiscriminate collections of information ? Peripitus (Talk) 07:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It may not be a relisting. See this subpage for an explanation — Iamunknown 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close without prejudice. Nominator gives no rationale for this proposal. —Psychonaut 12:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is not; see Otto's first post — Iamunknown 05:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Good list: nothing indescriminate or unmaintainable about it. AndyJones 13:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... must be a politician + must be Australian + must be fictional = not indiscriminate. Well-annotated list. --Canley 15:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as un-encyclopædic trivia.--cj | talk 18:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what specific policy is it in breach of?Ga rr ie 04:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOT One Night In Hackney 06:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DXRAW. JROBBO 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't see what policies this page breaks. Lankiveil 21:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. In no way indiscriminate, interesting, and well-annotated. Rebecca 05:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. One Night In Hackney 06:11, 8 January 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.