Deletion of List of 2003 Australian incumbents

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  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 ), it is the sort of information expected to be found on WP, and the added information will not cause those articles to be |unwieldly
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:GNG||WP:TOOBIG)