Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/58th United Kingdom general 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 Keep. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

58th United Kingdom general election[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

It has been long-established that we shouldn't have articles on the election-after-next for full cycle elections. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (3rd nomination) as a recent example (or this, this or this). This article should not exist until 2019 United Kingdom general election is over (and even that article has been moved prematurely as Parliament has not yet ratified the election). Number 5 7 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per past precedent. We have created pages for the last few UK general elections at the start of the campaigns for the previous elections (see 55th election, 56th election and 57th election). None of these pages were deleted, although the 55th was nominated for deletion the nomination failed. This page has valid information about the election, especially relating to the date. The nominator concedes that, if not already, this page will be valid in 44 days time, so quite different to the example of the 2024 United States presidential election nomination of 2018, where the page would not be valid for over two years. If there is a hung parliament following the 2019 election, this election could take place in a few months time. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftiy until 13 December. Keep: Seems silly to delete less than six weeks before needing to recreate it. I think the comparisons to previous deletions of presidential election articles is flawed as, in the UK at least, the second a general election is called there are important political calculations to be made about the following election. 79.77.0.19 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All content is about UK elections generally and nothing is specifically about the 58th election besides the date. Recreate the article after the current campaign is over when we will have literally a single actual fact about it, even if only 44 days away. Draftify is fine, but this is all just copy-pasted from 2019 United Kingdom general election; it is redundant and serves no purpose. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's only a brief period in which this will be the election-after-next,and as soon as a UK election is called it becomes a distinct entity needing different coverage from the one that comes after it.(The deletion,on the third try,of the 2024 USA presidential election article was an even worse mistake...the date-fixed-by-law-into-the-indefinite-future status of USA elections is more thoroughly established,and of longer standing,than the UK law that has actually only been followed once and has been campaigned against in a major party's manifesto...there is nothing speculative about assuming American election day is not likely to change).12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear what "on the third try" is supposed to mean. It was deleted on the second nomination too, for very good reason, but recreated over a WP:SALT without consensus. Adding to note that there are zero sources on this 58th election...an article ought to have citations that actually reference the topic (WP:NOTE)... Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well,I'm especially bitter about people deleting mentions of scheduled American election days from articles on future years,when standing law requires those elections to be held on those dates in those years,while keeping speculative predictions of things that may or may not happen in those years.They may not need full-blown articles yet but no harm is done.The 57th election being called is what makes the 58th something that there can now be articles about...you can't fault there not having been any UNTIL know as a reason not to acknowledge that circumstances have changed.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now. The planned date of the election may also be of interest to readers. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INTERESTING is not a policy-based argument to keep. The date could also be mentioned at List of United Kingdom general elections and this redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For the sake of convenience, just keep the article? What is the point in deleting an article that will ultimately be recreated in a number of weeks? No need for this excessive bureaucratic debate over a inevitable article that will eventually come into existence, so why not now when the groundwork has already been laid. Eolais | Talk | Contribs 23:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Agree with Eolais. Deleting or even discussing the deleting of an article that will be recreated in a matter of weeks when there will be no question of its existence is just adding to unnecessary busywork when when editors can be spending more productive time creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It'll become much more relevant two months from now. There's no need to delete it now only to inevitably recreate it a few weeks later. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Always going to be relevant. It will become relevant soon. Peter Kelford (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep will be relevant. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In 5 weeks will need to be created. What is the difference? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While I was doubtful and can see the nominator's rationale, the fact that it would almost certainly be created as soon as the 2019 polls close (ie in 6 weeks) means deleting know is probably pointless. Also it is not unknown during election campaigns for discussion to start about the next election and attract a lot of coverage. For instance it may well be that party manifestos include pledges of electoral reform which would come in at the next general election (for instance changes to the voting age) and so might be discussed in the artilce. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft - move the article to the Draft stage. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BURO, since even the nom accepts that the article would be uncontroversially recreated anyway in a matter of few weeks. Kahastok talk 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Errantius (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wait it out. The article will inevitably become notable/crucial following the 12th of December, so deleting it now, just to be created in a little more than a month, doesn't make any sense. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for simplicity; as noted above, it seems a bit bureaucratic to delete in the expectation that it will be created again, unchanged, before the end of the year (when it will be acceptable)

(Incidentally, calling it "58th" rather than "next" or a specific date seems an excellent change on what we've done when this has come up in previous years). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now. WP:NORUSH. The date also may be relevant to our readers. Wm335td (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per others as this is a scheduled event and there's a past precedent for these articles. On 13 December we can move it to Next United Kingdom general election, but I guess this isn't possible at present since it would cause confusion. This is Paul (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Comment Within 1 day this deletion request has already been met with heavy opposition. I believe I speak for most people that there really is no need for the deletion of this article to be deleted. When the hard work is done, why undo it for the sake of it not being relevant right now. It will become relevant once the results of the subsequent election are released; no further reason for this discussion to continue, I think consensus has been reached. Eolais (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Eolais: looks to me like a consensus after good discussion. Errantius (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is going to be kept, then it should be renamed Next United Kingdom general election. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it is actually the next UK general election. At present the next UK general election is the one before. Kahastok talk 14:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, we could use the Canadian example (see 44th Canadian federal election) & stick with the current title. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why shouldn't we just do exactly the same thing as we did in 2017, 2015 and 2010? That is, wait until the current election is finished, and then move the article to Next United Kingdom general election? Kahastok talk 17:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we can move this on 13 December. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2019 (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.