Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of political controversies in Australia

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. Tone 15:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of political controversies in Australia[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)

The category of "political controversies" is impossibly broad and inclusions are open to debate; this list could never be satisfactorily completed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mqst north (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 10:57, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:WORKINPROGRESS. Having a list of all WikiNotable Category:Political scandals in Australia is not overly broad - we only have 32 of them. Political scandals are clearly discussed as a set - meeting NLIST. Icewhiz (talk) 11:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is not a list of scandals, though, it's a list of "controversies". This could include literally anything in Australian history that has been the subject of debate or contention at some point. Whether a list of only notable scandals – in addition to the automatically-generated Category:Political scandals in Australia – is worth having is a separate issue. Mqst north (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That a possible argument for renaming (but not deletion) to List of political scandals in Australia (which does not exist). I personally see "scandal", "row", and "controversy" as nearly synonymous in the political sense (scandal has a POV spin in that it implies wrong doing, but is otherwise similar). Icewhiz (talk) 11:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definitely significant events that have lead to the downfall of governments, Royal Commissions, changes to laws, and dismissals. Controversies and scandals are two different things, Barnaby Joyce has had recent scandals that arent part of this. Could do with some sectioning but thats something to talk about on the page as it grows. Gnan garra 11:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra. Bookscale (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This seems like a useful list of historically significant events, though I'd like to see some citations, especially for the ones that don't have articles of their own. As for the concern that "this list could never be satisfactorily completed", {{dynamic list}} exists precisely for this reason, though I'm not convinced that's the case for this particular list. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 15:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- comment while I think the list needs some work, and I have recommended keeping the inclusion criteria needs clarity I think if an event doesnt have it own article then it isnt significant enough to be on the list. Gnan garra 03:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that there's an element of subjectivity to the list and it's impossible for it to be comprehensive, but if you are not familiar with Australian politics and want to learn it looks like a useful resource. Shritwod (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any political controversy notable enough to have its own article should be on this list. It meets the requirements for a list article. Dream Focus 19:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a broad list based on undefined criteria. What counts as a "controversy"? Looking at the list, the Playmander and the Bjelkemander were certainly controversial, but are they really controversies in the same sense as, say, the Morosi Affair? I see Cornelia Rau, Vivian Solon and Peter Slipper here despite those being biographies; I would also dispute the idea that "controversies" and "scandals" are interchangeable. The Morosi affair was certainly a scandal; I think it's a big stretch to describe the Dismissal in the same sense. An inherently POV list that would be better deleted. Frickeg (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I’ve been pondering since last night how to articulate my deletion rationale for this. Frickeg has relieved me of that task. —Mkativerata (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a useful list of significant events. WP:IMPERFECT WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 02:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnangarra & Dream Focus. Can always discuss what criteria should be met to classify as a controversy, and if you think certain events should be deleted from the list, but there is no reason to delete the article itself. Powertothepeople (talk) 08:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gnan garra --SalmanZ (talk) 22:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Powertothepeople - the issue is that the inclusion of various issues might require discussion - rather than deleting the list. JarrahTree 04:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as an overview list of a broad subject, all of the entries should be notable in their own right as per WP:CSC - the few entries that do not link to a stand alone article should be removed, but it generally fits. Controversy & scandal are not interchangeable - to me describing a matter as controversial does not involve a POV, but scandal does, because of the additional element of wrong doing. The criteria for inclusion certainly need to be clarified & made explicit. I would change to delete only if it turns out the criteria can't be fixed. Find bruce (talk) 10:09, 28 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.