Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Durham City by-election, January 1871

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, and a special thanks to User:Number 57 on this one. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Durham City by-election, January 1871[edit]

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

Nominating this article as although by-elections to the UK Parlimanet are notable as a rule I believe that notability is questionable in this case as (1) it was unopposed and so there was no actual election held, (2) there was no change in the MP or party, (3) it was a pro-forma by-election that all MPs had to go through if they were taking an office of profit for the crown and (4) no notable coverage seems to have been generated over the failure of anyone else to stand. In essence these types of byelections were non-events. ~~I say delete at the moment but could be persuaded.~~ I will be adding similar by-elections later. JASpencer (talk) 17:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Newcastle struck out as it does seem to have generated a small amount of coverage around the Conservatives not standing and I did not want to muddy the waters of this AfD. JASpencer (talk) 15:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Soft delete~~ Nominator invited me on my talk page to this discussion. Looking at the page history, nominator created this article last November. This nomination appears to be intended to be an RfC on the topics the nominator wants to discuss, but uses the time of AfD volunteers. I'm willing to assume that a PROD would have had the effect of deleting this article, and "soft delete" gets us to the same as the prod result. Unscintillating (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft delete is no longer a relevant !vote. Unscintillating (talk) 23:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I didn't think of an RFC. However it would be good to get views from people who deal with deletion more often. JASpencer (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unconested elections are also elections, and many things could be said about back-door deals and negotiations leading up the nomination. Elections to national legislatures ought to be notable by default, and thus articles should be kept. In case there are several by-elections in same year, area etc, a merge might be a possible way forward, though. --Soman (talk) 20:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if there is anything to be said about back door deals then it may deserve a Wikipedia article, but in these cases there doesn't seem to be anything of note - at least from the Wikipedia articles and Google searches. Despite their names the lack of opponents or new MPs made these by-eelctions a bureaucratic exercise. JASpencer (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep, I agree with the point made by Soman. The point made by JASpencer about lack of internet accessible evidence may be a temporary situation. Increasingly information, including historical information is being added to the internet. If a page of this type is deleted, editors may wonder why it does not exist and go through the process of creating it, as the information about it referred to in the nominators introduction may not be immediately to hand. Graemp (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't there a case for saying that the presumption for by-elections where there has been no vote and no change should have to prove themselves notable i the way that most other events do? JASpencer (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is unsourced, and the event, if the date is right (I'm curious because it's a Saturday), does not seem to be notable...The Times makes no mention whatsoever of it, although it mentions Davison's appointment as Advocate General on the 9 Jan. Looking at the Westbury election, The Times has a mention as a part of the days proceedings in Parliament, but nothing of note. As above, these were essentially rubber-stamping execises. TheLongTone (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed delete vote, since article has been improved & notability established.TheLongTone (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was not unusual for by-elections to take place on a Saturday. I would guard against an assumption that The Times is a fully comprehensive record of historical events in the UK. For example, The Times did not print the outcome of the 1920 Louth By-election, which was a particularly notable result as the seat actually changed hands. Graemp (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all All by-elections are notable, regardless if they were unopposed or not. Added a couple of references for the Durham one too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:59, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of the references were to the January 1871 by-election. The Google Books reference was to the April 1871 by-election (held after Roberts' death) and the other reference was to his appointment to the position that caused him to seek re-election - and not to the by-election itself. JASpencer (talk) 15:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to John Robert Davison. It's not necessary to have this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the fact that neither of the two 'elections' I checked generated a single line of real coveage in The Times is fairly clear evidence of non-notability: for the Westbury election what there is is essentially a couple of lines about a bit of minor parlimentary business. Perhaps the topic of these unopposed elections is worth an article which the current articles could redirect to. Otherwise, redirects to the politicians concerned would be appropriate.TheLongTone (talk) 12:48, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the yardstick of The Times coverage, I refer the Honourable Editor to the answer I gave some moments ago. Graemp (talk) 15:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed that. Interesting, and a good point.TheLongTone (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and Redirect~~ to each constituency unless/until some coverage is found. If there is no coverage then there is no need for an article on the by-election, but we can record the by-election and the reason for the by-election on each constituency. With the redirects anyone looking for these by-elections will find anything there is on the topic. Deletion is not a good idea as anyone looking at the relevant template e.g. Template:By-elections to the 30th UK Parliament will wonder why there is no article on the by-election without easily being able to tell why. Davewild (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I would have supported keeping Newcastle-upon-Tyne by-election, 1918‎ before it was withdrawn as there is some coverage that would not fit on the constituency page. Davewild (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about why we should use redirects rather than deletions. The rule that "until coverage is found" is a good one, but perhaps we should be careful as "until coverage is found" is not really suitable as contested by-elections where party control changes is going to be notable, it's only that the coverage has not been found. JASpencer (talk) 21:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on that. Davewild (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I think Number57 has demonstrated notability for the Durham City by-election and with that as an example I think it is likely there is as much coverage for the other by-elections so think they should be kept. Davewild (talk) 06:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lean towards keep I am a deletionist by heart, and would usually recommend that articles like this are merged to their 'father' article. BUT I do think that maybe they should be retained if there's any chance of expansion (even if this is only on something like candidate biogs). Davewild, above, is right to say that readers should be able to 'tell' straight away that information exists, even if it has been merged into the main constituency article, rather than the blank space which usually follows a deletion. I thank Lugnuts for giving me notice of this discussion doktorb _words^deeds 11:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uncontested elections are still noteworthy; the text can explain why there were no opposition candidates, why it happened etc. I suspect that there was media coverage of this, but because it's from 1871, it's difficult to find. As noted above, the Times is not necessarily the definitive source some people think it is. Number 5 7 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontested by-election today would be notable, but in the nineteenth century they were common. Particularly under the offices for profit regulations (something that no longer happens). If there are things to talk about then the article can be created. Currently there is nothing of interest, no independent sources. These are clearly failing notability guidelines, the only question is whether they have inherent notability, not whether they have notability in the future. JASpencer (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided several independent sources, as detailed below. Number 5 7 15:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem in arguing that "Currently there is nothing of interest, no independent sources." as many potentially notable by-election articles have been created over the past year by JASpencer that currently contain the same lack of detail as the by-elections under discussion here. Graemp (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a non sequitur really. This is about unopposed ministerial by-elections which don't change hands and don't have any independent sources. The whole AfD was tightly defined to avoid getting into that argulment. This is for the rubber stamping exercises. If we have a soft delete or a merge (and the current state of debate won't allow for a hard delete) then we will simplt get a set of redirects that can be upgraded with little problem. JASpencer (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ministerial byelections have been a subject of particular study, but mostly when they were actually contested: the expectation was that they would be unopposed. The most recent study is by "Government Appointment By-elections: 1832-86" by Angus Hawkins, which is chapter 2 in "By-elections in British Politics, 1832-1914" ed. by T.G. Otte and Paul Readman (Boydell Press, 2013, ISBN 9781843837800). In it Hawkins notes two things which are highly relevant here: 1) There were 504 such byelections, by far the largest cause of byelections in the period he chose; 2) of the 504, 432 (86%) were unopposed. There is also a contemporary article: "List of Opposed Elections on Taking Office" by Alfred B. Beaven, in the English Historical Review, Vol. 26, No. 101 (Jan., 1911), pp. 139-148, available on JSTOR (http://www.jstor.org/stable/550107); the fact that Beaven identified only the opposed or contested elections speaks for itself.

My inclination is to suggest that ordinary unopposed re-elections without any special features should really be redirected to a single article explaining the background, the (changing and rather complicated) law which required the re-election, and the fact that it was usually unopposed. That article might be Ministerial by-election (UK) suitably expanded. Opposed elections can have their own article, as can the rare occasions when there was something more to add to the fact of an election being unopposed. One such being Newark in January 1846, when Gladstone was appointed Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, but withdrew from the election when the Duke of Newcastle refused to support him and put forward John Stuart as a rival Conservative. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That very interesting by-election wouldn't come under this AfD as the seat changed hands. JASpencer (talk) 20:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a table in the article to see how that would look. JASpencer (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to custom article~~ I think that deletions are probably not necessary (although with the ones I've created we won't really lose much). However we do need to think carefully about where they are redirected. There are four possible alternatives:

Parliamentary sitting. The parliamentary sitting is not really a good option. Although these are tied to the ministries that caused the by-elections there's no other redeeming feature for this which could be confusing to a reader. Probably why this has not been mentioned as a solution.
Member of Parliament While these do relate to the MP more than contested or byelections change hands and it is unlikely to lead from the page there will still be anything informative for the reader apart from the office that they had to have the by-election for. There will be little to show for this. There is a small benefit in that one of the ways in which these could be navigated.
Constituency The constituency will at least say where this applied to, but in most ways its worse than the MP. It's highly unlikely to be listed as it's not even a roadbump in the constituency's history as there was no change, no contest. It's also less satisfying than the MP as the reader will almost certainly see it in the link that takes them there whether its through a listing of by-elections or a table at the bottom of an article.
Ministerial by-election page This has the opportunity to tell them the most, particularly if accompanies by a table of such by-elections so the information is available. When the table is better developed then the refirects can be more, well, direct.

JASpencer (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case, Durham City by-election, January 1871, there are clearly enough sources now - so there is no way that this article will be deleted or merged.

It's also clear that even the most unpromising article will have enough sources to eventually become an article

However the current articles which merely say that someone was unopposed and won are uninformative so I am going to start a process of listing these by-elections in a centralised article and then merging the uninformative articles in to the more informative centralised article. I've started a discussion there. JASpencer (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JASpencer (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be better to try and expand them? If you are a member of a council library, it's highly likely that you have access to the same sources that allowed me to find the coverage detailed below. Number 5 7 21:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete elections are not inherently notable. They are only notable if they have significant coverage. These by-elections do not have significant coverage. --Bejnar (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Davewild: I remembered that I have access to the 19th Century Archive of British Newspapers via my library account, and have just had a look for coverage of the Durham election. I found the following:
- "THE FORTHCOMING ELECTION FOR THE CITY OF DURHAM" Northern Echo (Darlington, England), Thursday, December 29, 1870; Issue 310 (3552 words)
- "DURHAM CITY ELECTION" Northern Echo (Darlington, England), Saturday, December 31, 1870; Issue 312. (1855 words)
- "DURHAM CITY ELECTION" The Evening Gazette (Middlesbrough, England), Monday, January 09, 1871; pg. 3; Issue 307. (311 words)
- "THE ELECTION FOR SOUTH DURHAM" The Bradford Observer (Bradford, England), Wednesday, January 11, 1871; pg. 3; Issue 2511. (60 words)
- "RE-ELECTION OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATEGENERAL AT DURHAM" Glasgow Herald (Glasgow, Scotland), Monday, January 16, 1871; Issue 9685. (403 words)
I think this is a reasonable level of coverage, including in newspapers outside the region (Glasgow and Bradford). I have added some of them to the article in expanding it. Number 5 7 14:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We now have an interesting article that is informative about a process, and tells a particular story in a non generic sense. It is also possible that as more information becomes available and is tracked down by other wikipedia editors, we will find out more about this particular event. I think JASpencer has done good service in raising this subject and Number has demonstrated that it is worth retaining these sort of pages. Graemp (talk) 15:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've used another database, and found another couple of sources:

"London, Wednesday, Jan. 4" Daily News, 4 January 1871
"Durham City Election" The Standard, 16 January 1871, p3

The Daily News was a national newspaper, and the Standard is the main newspaper in London. We now have seven news articles from local papers both in the area and elsewhere, plus a national newspaper. I think this means it passes WP:GNG. Number 5 7 20:35, 13 August 2014 (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.