Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2003 Australian incumbents

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 merge to 2003 in Australia. And to the other respective yearly articles. Sandstein 07:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2003 Australian incumbents[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Are these list articles useful? There are 6 of them for Australia, covering 2003 through 2008. Nothing links to them and they are mostly redundant snapshots.

Other lists in this set with similar content:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2003 in Australia, 2004 in Australia, 2005 in Australia, 2006 in Australia, 2007 in Australia, 2008 in Australia - which largely duplicates the content of the nominated articles. Anything not included in these articles can be merged there. Bookscale (talk) 10:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge per Bookscale. I'm not sure all the content needs to be merged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:05, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that there are also sets of these for the UK (1976–2006) and Canada (1867 and 1979–2010), as well as for international organizations (2003–2017). Raymie (t • c) 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2003 in Australia, I guess it can be merged there. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on what nominator states: "Are these list articles useful?" - yep, if you're interested in OZ political history, "There are 6 of them for Australia..." - you're right, thats not enough as we could have one for each year or have say lists covering a period of years, "Nothing links to them" - incorrect, they link to each other, and the relevant "[Year] in OZ" article, more links could be added from each person that is listed if required, "and they are mostly redundant snapshots" - they are historical snapshots so of course they can be said to be "redundant", from what the nominator has stated this looks like a classic case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT ie. no WP policy/guideline based reasoning provided for deletion, only criticism of the articles, anyway, with that little rant out of the way, agree that these should probably be merged to the relevant year in Oz articles as although there may not be any sources available (so no WP:GNG), it is the sort of information expected to be found on WP, and the added information will not cause those articles to be unwieldly. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2019 (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.