Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crawley Council election, 2012

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 I don't know what the consensus here is, but I can confidently say it's not delete -- Y not? 15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crawley Council election, 2012

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

WP:Crystal. Can perfectly be moved to the workspace of the author untill there is something more to tell about these elections, say March/April 2012! Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The elections will take place and the date is already known as it is set out in statute and the wards up for election are known due to the expiration of the exisiting councillors terms. There has also been no publication of boundary changes and no Standing Orders have been passed by parliament modifying the boundaries. This means the ward names and alike are the same as when they were last contested. The wait and see argument is a bit bogus here as you wait and see until when? This is better discussed on the project page to discuss if there should be "cut off" date before the creation of election articles. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But having an empty article for the next few months is not really usefull. That is why I suggest to move it to your own userspace, untill there is more information available. Without candidates, it is pretty useless. But removing is silly. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case this is better considered on the article discussion page or on the creator’s user talk page. AfD is only meant for the nomination of articles for genuine and permanent deletion and not to discuss page moves or pages mergers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.North8000 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true as a compromise or result of the discussion but the original nomination must be for deletion and not for moving, merging or redirection. Otherwise it is not strictly a "good faith" nomination.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? What kind of .... are you telling? It is a proposal to move the article out of the articlespace to your own workspace . No merger, no deletion, just a move to another sector of Wikipedia. Nothing gets lost, it is only parked on a by-road instead of on the motorway. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a discussion to delete the article, if there is a wish to move the articles to another place on Wikipedia (including a userspace)then a request a move is required. Using deletion request for requesting an aticle be moved to another part of Wikipedia is an abuse of deletion requests.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a discussion to remove the article from the articlespace. The way it is removed, is not per definition the destruction of the article by deleting it. Why such a fuzz and big words? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The big problem here is there is an established procedure for moving an article and that is Move Request. Perhaps talking to the creator of the article before nomination for deletion would have acheiverd your goal. Deletion request is only meant for when an article is genuinly not fit to be on Wikipedia because it fails to meet the set standards. In this case the request is not to delete the article it is to move the article, so the request is not a deletion request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe you should read WP:CIVIL. I take offence out of your words... Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to go off topic please remain on topic, all comments refer to this deletion request (including the nature of the request) and if any user has taken offense based on a factual reading of the situation then tough. Perhaps more thought and research (such as looking on the talk page) was required before nomination to ensure the criteria for a deletion request is met before nominating. No user has had thier character questioned or attacked. Simply the nature of this errouneous deletion request has been questioned as it is not a deletion request, it is a move request.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no references, crystal-balling as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So ignore the fact it's entirely unreferenced and speculates as to the parties contesting the seats? And presumably we can create Crawley Council election, 2013 using your logic? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, per WP:CRYSTAL which goes on to state : "[some articles are] not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yep, go ahead and create it! Refs added, I assume you'll be nominating Broxbourne Council election, 2012 and other articles in the navigation template too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well perhaps you're unaware of an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom discussing the value (or otherwise) of these stub articles that can easily be merged into the previous election articles as they add nothing other than the planned date of the election. I didn't nominate this article either, but I agree that it's a pointless article that adds no value to Wikipedia, speculates on the composition of parties running for particular seats and full of redlinked templates. All in all, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion mentioned by TRM is the forum for where the discussions should take place and not a deletion discusssion where the nominator simply wants a page move to user space. Deletion discussion is not the place for that kind of discusssion. The link to the discussion mentioned by TRM is also on the article talk page, so no research was done and no attempt was made at discussion before nominating for deletion. All in all a very poor nomination.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that. The guidance/policy should be agreed there and once finalised, it can be used to keep/delete individual election articles, not the other way around. Lugnuts (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, assuming good faith, the nominator wasn't aware of the discussion either? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That may well be true but the nominator only had to look on the discussion page of the article. Also the nominator them self has stated unequivocally that they do not want the article deleted they simply want the article moved to a user space.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, we are where we are. No point crying over spilt milk, let's just see how the AFD pans out, and continue the overall discussion at the Wikiproject. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Aequo (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Convention has always fallen onto the side of these articles being maintained. This discussion has been held numerous times, and each time the basis for keeping always outweighs the basis for deleting. The articles are established parts of the wider UK politics project, are notable by the nature of their content, are not 'first source' material or original research, and do not break the CRYSTAL rules by virtue of their status in the political calender. That some parts of the country has more electoral statistics to hand is of no consequence. doktorb _words^deeds 15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So how do you know the "Justice Party" are running for any seat (for example)? That's original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am not a resident of Crawley so the basis of finding proof is hard to make....BUT, before we go down that route, I will agree with you that this entire issue is somewhat contentious. I suggest (not least because it's an article which appears safe from deletion for the time being) that people look at what I did for Preston Council election, 2012, especially if you press "Edit" and see that I have hidden election results and sourced encyclopedic content in the interim. doktorb _words^deeds 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So it is original research. It certainly isn't verifiable. I thought we worked on the basis of information in our articles being verifiable, not speculative? (Incidentally, if the article stays, it should really look like this as it will then contain almost no unverified material...) The Rambling Man (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think it is OR as such. I have election boxes with parties ready and waiting, only I have taken the step to hide them. If the user does that too, *in addition to* adding the kind of ward information/electoral history as I have, then we could be good to go. The issue here is how specific local information doesn't equate to Wikipedia rules. I know, pretty much, exactly who will stand in each Preston ward, because elections here are dull, small and parochial, with the same people taking part every year. But I also know that Wikipedia doesn't like having information without citations. Lucy obviously has the same small-town local elections going on in Crawley because otherwise she would not be confident in keeping the parties as they are. If this article does stay, then she (or anyone else) should copy my model for local elections to circumnavigate their way around AfD sharks. (Incidentally, user:DaveWild is also a good man to go to for this sort of thing) doktorb _words^deeds 15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, but just because a user "knows" something, it doesn't mean it should be included in an article unless it can be independently and reliably verified. This information is not verifiable and should be hidden until some/all of it can be verified. (Plus it would hide all the uses of that broken template). The Rambling Man (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Absolutely right, but I still oppose deletion, which is the question posed by this nomination. If Lucy has the kind of information which Davewild and I include where we can on these sorts of articles then it is instantly saved. "Common knowledge" has a place in Wikipedia, though, and local elections might only have two main sources (local newspaper, the local council itself). doktorb _words^deeds 15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said, I would be reasonably happy to keep the version which doesn't have all the empty tables speculating over the composition of the various wards, because the rest of the article is reasonably well referenced. I see no place for empty, unreferenced, unverifiable, speculative tables of data (with broken templates...!) The Rambling Man (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) 00:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is not intended to apply to future events which are near-certainties, such as scheduled elections. In addition, it is likely that there will be a large amount of verifiable information available on this topic prior to the event that will be of encyclopaedic value to a large cohort of readers, and there is an administrative benefit to the project in having an article available to collect and organise that information as it occurs. The topic is clearly notable and is the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Disputes about quality or verifiability of article content are not a matter for AfD and can be handled through the normal edit/revert/discuss process. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - still see no point in an article that can simply be a single sentence in the previous year's election article, but I've removed the unverifiable, speculative tables and added a {{cn}} template where required. It's now a stub which is effectively useless other than to tell us the alleged date of the election, but at least most of it is verifiable and not original research. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And damaging or destroying the article was just what I was trying to avoid by suggesting a move. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't see what "damaged" or "destroy[ed]" the article. Can you clarify? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes could you please clarify how that has "damaged" the article as the content still exists in the history.--Lucy-marie (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Moves are not achieved by use of the delete function. Please see WP:RM. Warden (talk) 10:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note it's probably worth noting that User:Lucy-marie had already copied the page to her userspace. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

**Correction to the above its User:Lucy-marie --Lucy-marie (talk) 19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete -- Council elections come up regularly, unlike Parliamentary ones, so that this is not WP:CRYSTAL. It is certain to happen (barring a revolution or an unlikely change in the law). However, we do not normally regard councillors as notable. Even articels on councils do not normally have much detail on their past composition. I am therefore dubious whether this is a kind of article that WP should encourage. I note that very few councils have election articles; we do not usually have articles on wards (as such), though the may coincide with a village or other locality that may be used as a surrogate. Since the councillors (let alone the defeated candidates) will be NN, there is little purpose in listing them. A table giving the results for each ward and the result ought to be sufficient. Accordingly I support ramblingman's action in removing all the blank tables. I suspect that this subject needs to be discussed more fully at a UK Politics project page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep for now; if it's a question about whether we should encourage such articles this needs an rfc , not a debate on an isolated article, and the article kept until there is a general consensus. I can see arguments either way, but want to judge this in a general context. DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 30 November 2011 (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.