Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral results for the district of North West

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 speedy keep. There appears to be a consensus that these kind of articles are fine based on the discussion below and the result of the previous AfD cited. I do note that several editors have suggested that these articles be sourced as soon as they're created, which seems like a good way of avoiding further AfDs (though this isn't necessary policy-wise). Nick-D (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results for the district of North West[edit]

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

Editor is creating a mass of articles all similar to this. Election results seem non notable to me, unless there was something in particular about that election that was notable (scandal etc). WP:NOT. Also, all of the articles appear to have no references, so this could be WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christ, not this shit again. Can we speedy this? Didn't you get the message last time? Miracle Pen (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original research! Um, do you really think I went down there and counted the ballots myself? At any rate, result articles don't even have to be encyclopedic - they qualify for separate articles because it's permitted to split articles once they become long enough (otherwise we'd have election results cluttering seat articles, like with Canadian ridings (e.g. here and here)). Miracle Pen (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the points raised at a similar AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is bordering on the absurd. The editor is creating these articles - and I commend him for it - because it's been standard to do so for over four years. Past election results are archived across the encyclopaedia; the Australian project has chosen to do so over separate pages. The implication of original research - for election results? - is one of the most patently ridiculous things I have ever seen. Anyway, see the arguments on the previous times this has been dealt with. Obviously the articles will need references but, going by the previous pages created by this user, they'll be added soon. Frickeg (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral results for the district of Burwood. In my view these nominations, from a single editor, are starting to become disruptive. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per my comments at the previous AfDs that have linked by others. It would be great if you could add references, though, Miracle Pen. Jenks24 (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done about 20 so far of the WA 2008 results. I've haphazardly done some of the NSW 2011 results, I'll finish them off next. As soon as Antony Green releases a 2010 Victorian election summary, I'll use that for the Victorian seats. Then I have to get onto Queensland.... Miracle Pen (talk) 09:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the reference and thanks for creating these articles. Jenks24 (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I would strongly prefer that we require that sources be documented (or at least described on the talk page) before an article can be created, this is not the current policy, and nominating an article for deletion four hours after it was created is not the way to go. Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Miracle Pen probably needs to consider that the community does not accept the incivility and corresponding disregard for the force of reason shown in this AfD, and that the corresponding insistence on creating articles that don't satisfy WP:V's sourcing policy can lead to a one-month topic ban. Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A Speedy keep result would allow this article to be renominated in two or three weeks. I am identifying WP:IAR as the controlling policy here, as IMO any attempt to develop or ascertain a consensus at this time is problematic. Unscintillating (talk) 13:55, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but please reference them straight away, not eventually. As you say, you aren't making up the numbers, so you obviously are copying them from a source - please write that source into the article's first edit. The-Pope (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ban nominator instead. Rebecca (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -This is a fresh article and it could stand improvement in the form of commentary, maps, and so on. Nevertheless, this is the sort of material that SHOULD be in an encyclopedia, in my estimation. I think there is a consensus for the inclusion of this sort of material that has developed. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 4 December 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.