Content deleted Content added
→List of convicts on the First Fleet: tidy grammar |
Keep |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people|list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</small> |
*<small class="delsort-notice">'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people|list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small>-- [[User:Gene93k|• Gene93k]] ([[User talk:Gene93k|talk]]) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)</small> |
||
*'''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. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
*'''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. -- [[User:Mattinbgn|Mattinbgn]]\<sup>[[User talk:Mattinbgn|talk]]</sup> 23:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''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. [[User:Cgoodwin|Cgoodwin]] ([[User talk:Cgoodwin|talk]]) 04:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:42, 20 July 2010
List of convicts on the First Fleet
- List of convicts on the First Fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (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)
- 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)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)