Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australian Anglicans

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 unsourced article, userfied others as per request Gnangarra 15:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lists of Australians by religion

List of Australian Catholics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- Deleted

List of Australian Presbyterians (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- moved to User:JRG/List of Australian Presbyterians

List of Australian Anglicans (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- moved to User:JRG/List of Australian Anglicans

These lists are problematic since the inclusion of the people on the lists is unverified, WP:BLP states that the article should have a referenced entry that justifies the addition of a religion cat, and there are further guidelines in WP:Categorization of people - I'm assuming the same should be applied to people on a list. Delete. --Peta 04:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and guidelines. Sr13 (T|C) 04:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom /Blaxthos 05:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the failure to comply with the policy on living persons; the information contained within the list can be conveyed equally well through categorization of the individual articles if the religious affiliation is sourced within the article as required by policy. Kyra_~(talk) 05:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, unless miraculously every entry on each list sprouts a verifiable reference. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I have cited my source for the inclusion of each entry on List of Australian Presbyterians, deleting one or two that had no citation. List of Australian Presbyterians was one of the first articles I created as a new Wikipedian (before I figured out categorization) and I used a Uniting Church in Australia 'Centenary' site as my source [1]. I request that if the page is deleted, it be userfied to my page for further reference. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the article is a copyright violation as a direct cut and paste. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 06:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well I guess you can tag it for speedy deletion on those grounds in addition to this nomination (and as I write I see you have). No worries, I'll just go to the original page for reference and categorization should do the rest. Blarneytherinosaur talk 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

How is that a copyvio? Yes, one source is bad, but there's nothing to stop me adding more entries to this page and it will just be a badly-sourced page. JRG 10:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It's a blatant wikified cut and paste from a webpage. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 21:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Bduke 10:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - I can reference all but a couple of those people on Australian Anglicans (John Howard being one of them - if anyone can find anything related to this please let me know; Michael Kirby is another). I really don't have time in the next few days to do this, though - can you please hold this off so I can get these references for the Anglican article? JRG 10:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Should only be kept if all the entries are based on accurate and attributable source material, particularly as this involves WP:BLP. I would also suggest it be kept only if the people on the list are prominent espousers or clergy, staff etc in the particular faith. Otherwise it seems to have little purpose other than an list of internal links or bunch of indiscriminate information. SM247^{My Talk} 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read my request? JRG 10:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment Yes I did. You appear to have not addressed anything I have said though, the sum of which renders your request nugatory. See also Scott Davis' remarks below. SM247^{My Talk} 22:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup as useful list. At least a couple of these lists are already sourced and sourcing the others could certainly be done. Capitalistroadster 05:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete all three. These people are not notable simply by being eligible to be on the list, and I know a number of people who qualify for each list but are not on it. An incomplete list is not useful. Categories do a better job of "list of xxx people with Wikipedia articles" which is essentially what two of these are. The third is a copy of someone else's list of "notable Presbyterians", but that website neither provides references for the claims that those people are/were Presbyterian, nor for those people being more notable than all other Australian Presbyterians (and it's a personal view, not the UCA's official opinion). I would keep lists of people who are notable because they are/were Anglican/Catholic/Presbyterian (such as list of Australian Catholic archbishops, List of moderators of the Presbyterian Church of Australia). --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with changing this sort of thing to categories is that you can put anyone in the category, and there's no way of verifying if anyone is an Anglican on the category page. I've started to attribute sources to all of the Anglican people, and it at least provides evidence that the persons in question have been or are involved in that particular church or denomination. I agree that the lists are very incomplete, but the way to stop that is to fix them up, not to delete them. JRG 00:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Update comment - for the List of Australian Anglicans, the persons' Anglicanism has been attributed in all cases to a source indicating their involvement with the Anglican church or their well-espoused Anglican belief; except for one instance, who was actually a Congregationalist and has been deleted from the list. I'm happy to add more people to this list, as I'm sure there are many more to be put in here. JRG 01:19, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
  • You have referenced the people in the list that they belong there (well done), and expanded the lead. There are still only 24 of them, so the list is clearly incomplete. The longer lead is still just as open - the correct reference for the list under that introduction would be the payroll for the Anglican Church, plus its membership lists. For example, Kim Beazley is not notable/famous/defined by the fact that he is a member of the Anglican church. He's famous because he was a politician. Ask five random Australians what John Howard, Kim Beazley and Kevin Rudd have in common, and you're unlikely to find "they're all Anglicans" is the answer. They're all former leaders of the Opposition, and their politics are not defined by their denomination. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If we are to have a distinct categorisation, what do you suggest I change the lead (and/or the title) to? Rudd, for example, is someone who has distinctly called himself an Anglican (Howard and Beazley much less so) and would fit better in some sort of list. I don't want this list deleted, but I'm keen to work for something that is manageable and can be filled out, whereas I agree somewhat that it's a bit indiscriminate at present. JRG 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You must also add each one of those references into the person's article to source the statement that they are Anglican within the article, and to justify the category that is also probably there (if it isn't referenced already). That's WP:BLP for you! For example Douglas Stevens currently doesn't have a single source in his article to reference what he is and the entire article content should be blanked if the rules are followed to the letter. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 04:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd suggest Category:Australian Anglicans for members of the church with Wikipedia articles that reference their membership, and List of Anglican bishops in Australia (lower case 'b' - does it need "and archbishops" to be accurate, or are archbishops just a kind of bishop?) renamed and grown from List of Anglican Bishops and Archbishops of Sydney (incorrect upper case 'B' and 'A') or perhaps a list of lists if there are lots. Is there another group that need to be covered (staff but not bishops are just like members if they are not notable because they are Anglican). --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that a list is different to a category; this list can be filled out and it will not be arbitrary to keep people (like Kevin Rudd) who have publicly espoused their association with the Anglican church. I think anyone who works for the Anglican church and is notable enough to have a WP article is not an arbitrary inclusion - Gordon Cheng and Tony Payne, for example, are notable Christian authors in the list that have worked in the Anglican Church (in stipendiary and lay capacity respectively) in the past (and still attend and are involved in Anglican Churches). While there are some arbitrary lists of Australians that should go, this one is one we can fix up. What's wrong with that? JRG 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Bishop should have a capital letter if it's someone's title. JRG 12:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

If you check my recent edit history, I have voted to keep several of these, and kept one or two more from even being nominated. I agree that a list is different from a category, and the List of Justices of the High Court of Australia you recently added to Lists of Australians is appropriate. In my opinion, this one is not suitable as it is an incomplete list of people notable for something else who happen to also be Anglican. The person's articles should reference the Anglican connection, and put them in the category. It appears a number of people agree with me, and a number agree with you. Some poor admin has to make a decision based on this discussion.

"People who have Wikipedia articles" is arbitrary, and satisfied by categories. "People who should have Wikipedia articles for X reason" are lists with clear criteria.

Re capitals: I agree it should be Bishop X (or Justice X), but it should be "list of bishops". --Scott Davis ^Talk 15:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unhelpful list.--cj | talk 07:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Being "unhelpful" is not a reason for deletion. Please cite a proper reason. JRG 12:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per JRG Billtheking 11:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per JRG. Mathmo ^Talk 09:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per ScottDavis and others. While a list of people who have worked in the church would be worth having and keeping, this is not that, risks being unbounded over time and becoming an indiscriminate list where the only thing those on it have in common is their faith. As some have raised too, in some cases there may be verification issues. How is one an Anglican or a Presbyterian for example? I was baptised a Methodist, was associated with a word-faith church for many years then left it - would I be a Methodist, an evangelical, or none of the above? That's the sort of issues these things raise. Orderinchaos78 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The header is more clearly stated than what you say. It is people who have clearly associated and identified themselves with the church in question, not just that they have had some vague association with them. JRG 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete or rename it fails the requirements for a list article to exist that are outlined in WP:LIST in my opinion, because it would be unbounded. If it were changed to List of notable Australian Anglicans I would change my vote. Lists of notable persons can be bounded. As to the above discussions, I don't think that people on the list should need to be notable for their Anglican involvement, they can be notable for any reason. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 04:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to change the list name to that, but I don't think anyone is going to support me in that. JRG 09:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It can be difficult with potentially unbounded lists, and renaming may not convert those who've already taken a stance against it. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 23:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing moderator - unfortunately (as usual) no one wants to work to a compromise, so can I ask that this be userfied to me please since this is almost certainly and disappointingly going to go be deleted. JRG 09:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Support I'm happy for these pages to be userfied to JRG so that he can use them to monitor the development of the articles linked from here. I'm also happy if he wants to add the red links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia/To-do#People of Australia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not preempting any decision but I've copied to User:JRG/List of Anglican Australians to be safe --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 22:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is pushing it and setting a dangerous precedent for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fans. Usedup 20:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That's complete rubbish. Please cite a proper reason if you want to take part in this debate. JRG 22:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a "dangerous precedent" - there are still plenty of worse examples. At least we're making an attempt to get the lists of Australians up to a standard of completeness and verifiability, and expunging the ones that can not be complete in favour of categories and more focused lists. The rest of the world is a bigger job than I want to take on. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise? - why don't we have a list of people who work or have worked for the Anglican Church in Australia? Bishops, ministers and lay people - if you can think of a good name or a way to make this workable please reply. Anyone else can go in a category. JRG 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I suggested List of Anglican bishops in Australia above. I don't think that ordinary clergy are inherently notable, and a category is easier to maintain for clergy and lay people famous for something else who are also Anglican. That title covers both the current Anglican Church of Australia and Anglican bishops from before that separate organisation was formed. There is already a Category:Australian Anglicans and Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in Australia which only has 4 subcategories and one list instead of 25. The dioceses are listed in the rather short article Anglican Church of Australia. A few of those already have lists of their previous and current bishops. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for a list of bishops; however, we do have some notable clergy who are not bishops and some lay people whose claim to fame is mostly to do with their work in the Anglican Church, and I'm not sure what we do with these people - maybe I'll stick them on the end of the particular diocese page. JRG 06:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The diocese is a possibility if they are associated with one in some significant way. The process I have used for biographies is 1) to make sure they are categorised properly and 2) look at the article and see which articles it links to should logically have a link back. Sometimes the logical link is from a subpage. It's usually obvious what made the person famous, and that is where the links to the article usually come from. --Scott Davis ^Talk 07:28, 13 March 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.