Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Sarawak state election

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 delete. Black Kite (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Sarawak state election[edit]

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

Nominating on behalf of IP: Well into WP:CRYSTAL territory here. There's no meaningful content here, just rehashing of the results of the previous election, for which there's already an existing article. Not even a precise latest-date for the election, though I assume at least that much could be determined. No suggestion of what likely content is even likely to be for the next three years. No references whatsoever. Unless Wikipedia wants to systematically create "Next [subnational entity] election" on a wholly speculative basis as soon as the previous one has concluded, having a handful of these articles on an ad hoc basis seems to raise more questions than it answers. [1] NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:03, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I though that was the usual practice on Wikipedia. E.g. Next Tasmanian state election. The fact that it is unreferenced is not a reason for deletion. It's not crystal-balling at all, any more than 2024 Summer Olympics is crystal-balling. It is a scheduled event, it is just that in this case (as with Tasmania) the year is as yet uncertain. StAnselm (talk) 06:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Such examples make it "not unprecedented", not (at least necessarily) "usual". I won't claim to have done an exact count, but I get the strong impression that the majority of such articles that could in principle exist, i.e. one per entity whose previous election already has an article, do in fact not. So I see no practical presumption that they should exist, regardless of meaningful content. That other "election" example has at least some irredundant content, and is sourced. The 2024 Olympics is actually scheduled, as opposed to merely "likely to occur at some point", which is considerably weaker. The lack of sources is material: if there's nothing of substance to be said about this topic, and no sources can be provided, then no notability or verifiability has been established. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do not see the need of a future political event article when so little information of value is present. The information provided in the article should be mentioned at Sarawak State Legislative Assembly. This is not a question of notability, or policy/guideline/essay being violated or not, but a case of common sense deletion of an article not having warranted existence to serve as a blurb of information. Judicatus | Talk 06:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per own nom. (Thanks to NeilN for facilitating.) No present evidence of notability for event at uncertain time in future. 84.203.35.31 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2013 (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.