Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaney family
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 (non-admin closure). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Chaney family (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Chaney family is a very short list of members of the family that fails purpose of lists. The information already is available in the underlying biography articles, including the family connections. The underlying biography articles are sufficient for navigation purposes and the list is very short and not needed for development. -- Jreferee t/c 19:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. See Category:Political families of Australia, articles have been tagged for deletion, yet entries in Category:Political families of the United States are fine? Timeshift 10:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. —Orderinchaos 11:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete two people? JJL 22:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Highly notable family spanning three generations in Western Australian politics and culture. Its status as a stub does not preclude further development. Orderinchaos 23:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per OIC. AfD Cruft. There is another who belongs in this article - Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) Twenty Years 13:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough in a purely present tense he's probably the most immediately recognisable member of the family, although the Freds did more. Like some of the others the family itself had status. Orderinchaos 01:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is the case for notability of the family made in the article? This is an article about a family that makes no assertion of that family's importance. It's a summary of the Fred Chaney article plus a slight expansion of what that article says about his father. It doesn't even mention Michael Chaney (Australian businessman) who apparently merits his own article too. Bush family and Kennedy family both assert the notability of the families. If the article doesn't make the case, complaining that the nomination is "AfD cruft" or biased against Australians, as some have here, is simply an attempt to deflect the blame from where it lies: The creator of this two-element list masquerading as an article. If the family is notable, edit the article to reflect that. I'd be happy to change my vote. JJL 02:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oddly enough in a purely present tense he's probably the most immediately recognisable member of the family, although the Freds did more. Like some of the others the family itself had status. Orderinchaos 01:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. Timeshift makes the main point - just as we have lists of political families in the US, so we need them for Australia. Both are essential for readers interested in knowing more about familism in politics. In many cases, family dynasties will only span two generations, but if there are many of them, then this is nonetheless significant. Restricting the political families lists to those with 3+ generations would provide an overly narrow perspective on political dynasties. Andrewleigh 5 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:17, 5 October 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.