Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Index to the Dictionary of Australian Biography

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 of the debate was Speedy deleted at request of creator - see below. Capitalistroadster 03:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this article - this Index is available from the Dictionary of Australian Biography website linked via the WP article. We don't need to duplicate something done well on a website. BlueValour 03:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as creator). The Dictionary of Australian Biography is a very important reference work for studies of Australian history. The 1949 edition is now available online as part of Project Gutenberg Australia and is in the public ___domain, (here) making it moreso. The reason for this index page was to provide a method for Wikipedians and readers to see which articles are available inside Wikpedia (ie blue linked). Also, an index of names of prominent individuals associated within Australian history is a not unreasonable thing to have in an encyclopaedia (IMO). -- I@n ≡ talk 03:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am struggling to see why folks would want to use this article to see who is in WP. If they spotted someone in the Dictionary that they wanted to follow up on surely they would just put the name in the Search box? - seems cumbersome to have to go through another list. Also, we already have a List of Famous Australians so this Index would duplicate that - better I suggest to add names to the exisiting list rather than create another. BlueValour 04:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps I meant to say who is red linked rather than blue linked. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A list of notable individuals associated with Australian history is different from an enumeration of biographies in a given reference volume; even as the content might be identical, the former would not need to reference the Dictionary (as, for example, any number of our lists, see, e.g., List of novelists from the United States; there are, of course, those of us who believe categories comprise articles sufficiently such that lists aren't necessary, but there's no consensus for that view) and would surely be differently-titled. Joe 04:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd have no huge problem with it being merged into the Dictionary article but would prefer not, as I feel that it sits better as a separate list. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 04:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cumbersome and most people would not think to use Wikipedia in this way - they would search. May I suggest somebody who is going to the Dictionary of Australian Biography would probably be relying upon that, rather than Wikipedia? Jammo (SM247) 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NOT A7. Completely redundant list since Category:Dictionary of Australian Biography does this job very nicely already. First update category with anything missing that's in this list. --DaveG12345 05:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is Not a list. Is this copywritten? --Alphachimp ^talk 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, It must have taken hours to link all of those names in this article. Why? Why? Why? --Alphachimp ^talk 05:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It actually took about 15 minutes, with Excel. As for why, see above. -- I@n ≡ talk 05:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, absolutely unnecessary and redundant. Potential copyvio (if the information is copywritten, speedy this per A8). --Coredesat 06:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment see above, seems to be public ___domain. Jammo (SM247) 07:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Amended my reason accordingly. --Coredesat 08:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unencyclopedic and duplicates information freely avaible from PG. There is a project page for this here.--Peta 12:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't aware of that project - my bad. I'm happy for the article to be deleted as it has same info as per the project page above. Given the votes above, and my comment here can the article be speedied and this AfD closed? -- I@n ≡ talk 02:21, 25 June 2006 (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.