Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Convicts on the First Fleet

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 no consensus. One two three... 04:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Convicts on the First Fleet

edit
Convicts on the First Fleet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This list is a clear example of WP:NOT in particular WP:DIRECTORY. All the linked people from the article are already present here: First_Fleet#Notable_First_Fleet_members. I assume this list has just been picked off another site and effectively it serves no purpose. Smartse (talk) 20:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not so sure. I feel this ties the whole history of a very important historical fact together, whereby giving readers somewhere to delve into the people of the first fleet. I have used this page extensively to give me ideas on who to research next. Without a list like this all of my work has little to no context. That goes for others works as well. It is the cinch pin in a very important part of our (Australian) history. And to say that it is purely a copy violation, could be pointed to all other pages that references and uses information from a website IMHO. I think deletion of this is very short sighted.

Macr237 (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see your point of view but as has been pointed out it is a copy of a list elsewhere on the web. If anyone on the list is notable then by all means create an article and link to it from First Fleet. A long list of names doesn't really give much insight into anything. Smartse (talk) 10:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see how this inherently violates WP:NOTDIR. It's not indiscriminate, it's a list of the people who first colonised Australia. If all the names can be verified, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't include them, despite the fact that most of them will be non-notable in themselves. And as for copyvio, well, it's a list. It's sure to be the same as the list to which it was referenced, but it has the possibility for expansion if more detailed refs can be found.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But that being said, it might be an idea to organise the list in a different manner, such as by ship, and to exclude extraneous information (eg "alias") --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that WP:NOTDIR isn't the most applicable piece of policy to quote WP:IINFO is perhaps better. Particularly "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Lists tend to be discouraged and one this long with so few links does seem particularly poor in my opinion. True they are the (English) people to colonise Australia but what does this doesn't really tell us anything. Smartse (talk) 08:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A clearly encyclopedic list of the people involved in the most significant event in the history of Australia. I hate to bring out WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument but how can lists of sportsmen be considered notable and not the people who founded the modern nation of Australia? I wonder at the priorities of some editors ... The list is elsewhere, so what? All our content is elsewhere, otherwise it would be original research. "What does this list tell us?" Where to start answering a question like this one. The list, quite obviously tells us the name, origin and other information about the founders of Australia, a nation uniquely (?) founded as a prison colony. The list is not indiscriminate, inclusion in the list is very strictly defined and verifiable. The setout of the list needs improving and addtional information added, the list should be made sortable by name, ship, offence, origin, sentence, fate etc. and the lede needs improving but that is not a reason to delete. This is exactly the sort of list that should be encouraged not deleted. I for one feel an encyclopedia that includes List of Pokémon but not this one is barely worthy of the name. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment List of Australia Test cricketers and List of Pokémon are a different matter - each has links to a separate article and so it serves a function in that it organises the articles into a list. If each person on this list was notable then the list would be needed, until that occurs I still see no reason for inclusion. As I mentioned previously the list of those with articles is already on First Fleet. I think that an external link to a full list such as this would suffice. Also I can see the argument for them having founded Australia but what about the Second Fleet - surely they are also founders. Are we going to make a list of them too? My point is that this is not encyclopedic. If anyone can find any policies on WP:LIST that deem this worthy for inclusion please point them out - I can't find any. Smartse (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One of the common functions of a list is to include information on otherwise non-notable items in the encyclopedia that would not otherwise merit a stand-alone article. From WP:SAL "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future. The one exception is for list articles that are created explicitly because the listed items do not warrant independent articles" As for the Second Fleet, I would not be opposed to such a list personally but even so, the First Fleet is such a historical turning point that such a list of its members (and it isn't a huge list, around 32k at present) is entirely appropropriate, even if others feel the Second Fleet would be overkill. "My point is that this is not encyclopedic." My point is that it is and merely stating that it isn't without any support for that reasoning is merely WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The list has historic and educational value, it is verifiable and it has clearly defined inclusion criteria. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know we have looser standards than most encyclopedias, but this is ridiculous. I can't remember the policy off-hand but there is one about not including primary source material like this. This is especially true when there is an online university database, searchable in 3 ways, which we can link to [1]. This is far superior to a copypasted list, the copyright status of which I'm also not entirely sure of. Rd232 talk 00:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list here on Wikipedia can be enhanced in ways that the online searchable database cannot by bringing together other data as it comes to hand. The list should not be judged on how it looks now but by what its encyclopedic potential is. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Encyclopedic potential: zero. Articles on notable individuals in the list can be linked by a category. WP:NOT a database. Rd232 talk 01:19, 29 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Convicts_on_the_First_Fleet&oldid=1069017730"