Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Statistics

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. Sandstein 09:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Statistics[edit]

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

Contested prod, but the reasons given for the removal of the prod (see the talk page of the article) aren't convincing to me.

These statistics don't seem to have any notability and aren't needed to understand the main page. Instead of having them placed on a separate page, they could and should simply have been removed. (Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either under WP:BLP, but is not in itself a reason for deletion). Fram (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and borderline incomprehensible. Aspirex (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I was expecting to see some discussion about how many ACs were awarded for specific types of endeavour (philanthropy, business, military etc), but I can't even work out what this article is about. Although not quite WP:GIBBERISH, it is pretty much incomprehensible to a general audience. I'd suggest WP:IMPROVEing the article, but I'm not even sure what you'd work towards. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Talk:List of Companions of the Order of Australia - Statistics

Proposed deletion/dated |concern = These statistics don't seem to have any notability and aren't needed to understand the main page. (Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either). |timestamp = 20151208102944

Several issues:

1) The top of the page says:

This page is a continuation of List of Companions of the Order of Australia

(For technical reasons, these sections have been placed on a separate page.) Clarification: because that page is already quite big.

This information could be returned to the relevant section of the page from which they have been separated, but that page is already quite big, (which is why they were split off into a separate page).

2) Statistics are facts about facts. I'm not sure what notability has to do with it. I believe that there is no doubt that the facts (i.e. the Companions of the Order of Australia), are notable.

3) "aren't needed".

a) This is your opinion - it is NOT a fact - and you do not explain why.

b) Absolutely NONE of Wikipedia is "needed" - the world managed perfectly well before Wikipedia existed - why just pick on this page?

4) "(Specifically listing people here who have opted out of being listed on the official database site is not a good thing either)."

Why not? This is public information published on official government websites for which references have been provided.

Again, this is your opinion - it is NOT a fact - and you do not explain why.

49.199.172.201 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I really don't care what the final decision is, provided that it is based on fact, (rather than opinion).

However, if the decision is simply based on the above "WP:I just don't like it" statements, I will be most disappointed with the deletion process. Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions - Pdfpdf (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Contested prod, but the reasons given for the removal of the prod (see the talk page of the article) aren't convincing to me. Well, as I implied on the talk page, the original reasons "aren't convincing to me", either, but at least I stated why.
- Could someone please explain what is incomprehensible?
- How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable - This is an opinion, not a fact.
- but I can't even work out what this article is about - Really? (I think the title of the article makes it clearly obvious what it is about, so I don't understand how or why you can't work it out.)
- Responses
  - What about my reasoning above constitutes an "I don't like it" argument? I have argued that this content fork does not present a clear rationale for existing separate from the main article, and is presented in a WP:TECHNICAL or confusing manner making it difficult for a general audience to understand. "Don't know why this needs to exist" is not "I don't like it". I see from the edit history that you (User:Pdfpdf) created the page in the first place; can you explain what you mean by "technical reasons" necessitating the new page? I was unable to find any discussion about this on the talk pages. I can certainly see the rationale for having a subheading for yearly summaries, but disagree that this requires an entirely new page. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, the bit I found "incomprehensible" was the fact that it is not apparent what either the list headings or the numbers within refer to. I assume, having read through the rest of the page and the parent page, that it refers to the number of ACs awarded in that year, under the General (G), Military (M) or Honorary (H) categories, but at first glance the reader does not have sufficient information to work out what is being presented. The "It's an honour" section is still confusing (and contains OR in that it explicitly contradicts the primary reference). A more thorough introduction to each section might help with the confusion, but my criticism above would still stand.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - "How many of each type were announced/awarded by date is not terribly notable - This is an opinion, not a fact." Allright, then prove to us that it is notable, that reliable independent sources have given significant attention to these statistics. Not to the awards themselves, these are notable of course, but specifically to these statistics. Deletion reason: not notable, not "I don't like it". Fram (talk) 07:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems surplus to the List of Companions of the Order of Australia article, which is large but not unmanageably so Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LibStar (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As stated, I created this page because it seemed to me that the List of Companions of the Order of Australia page was large, and I feared that adding this information to that page would make that page unmanageably large. It appears to me that neither Yeti Hunter nor Nick-D have that fear. Good. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that's my view Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 21 December 2015 (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.