950:. 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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)
1241:. 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.
214:- 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. --
1069:
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. -
714:
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
900:
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
871:
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
672:
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
Knowledge
1068:
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
983:
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 Knowledge (XXG), though, and local
529:
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
530:
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.--
436:
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
1002:
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...!)
375:
This is a discussion to delete the article, if there is a wish to move the articles to another place on
Knowledge (XXG) (including a userspace)then a request a move is required. Using deletion request for requesting an aticle be moved to another part of Knowledge (XXG) is an abuse of deletion
1258:
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.
872:
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.
764:
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
964:
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
158:
258:
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
927:
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
311:
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.--
669:
1098:
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.
390:
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?
152:
437:
Knowledge (XXG) 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.--
119:
1088:- 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
92:
87:
846:
96:
824:
732:
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.
79:
779:
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.
715:
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.--
337:. No merger, no deletion, just a move to another sector of Knowledge (XXG). Nothing gets lost, it is only parked on a by-road instead of on the motorway.
592:, which states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place".
173:
140:
192:. Can perfectly be moved to the workspace of the author untill there is something more to tell about these elections, say March/April 2012!
632:
which goes on to state : " not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research."
83:
232:
it to your own userspace, untill there is more information available. Without candidates, it is pretty useless. But removing is silly.
673:(XXG), speculates on the composition of parties running for particular seats and full of redlinked templates. All in all, pointless.
17:
1195:
647:
610:
So ignore the fact it's entirely unreferenced and speculates as to the parties contesting the seats? And presumably we can create
134:
1270:
1250:
1227:
1207:
1180:
1153:
1139:
1125:
1107:
1078:
1052:
1012:
993:
978:
959:
941:
918:
895:
881:
860:
838:
815:
788:
774:
759:
745:
724:
708:
682:
663:
641:
623:
605:
578:
539:
496:
446:
403:
385:
350:
320:
294:
268:
245:
223:
205:
61:
1118:
489:
396:
343:
238:
198:
902:
130:
75:
67:
180:
1289:
40:
611:
1203:
1135:
1113:
1103:
1008:
974:
937:
891:
784:
755:
678:
637:
619:
574:
484:
391:
338:
233:
193:
1176:
1074:
146:
1144:
Yes could you please clarify how that has "damaged" the article as the content still exists in the history.--
1246:
886:
So how do you know the "Justice Party" are running for any seat (for example)? That's original research.
1285:
1199:
1131:
1099:
1004:
970:
933:
887:
780:
751:
674:
633:
615:
570:
36:
1223:
1149:
1047:
770:
720:
535:
442:
381:
316:
264:
219:
1238:
1065:
629:
589:
566:
228:
But having an empty article for the next few months is not really usefull. That is why I suggest to
189:
1172:
1070:
989:
955:
914:
877:
290:
166:
1036:
1242:
1112:
And damaging or destroying the article was just what I was trying to avoid by suggesting a move.
480:
569:
as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content.
856:
834:
741:
704:
659:
601:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1284:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1219:
1215:
1191:
1145:
811:
766:
716:
531:
438:
377:
312:
260:
215:
48:
The result was I don't know what the consensus here is, but I can confidently say it's
1168:
984:
elections might only have two main sources (local newspaper, the local council itself).
1237:-- Council elections come up regularly, unlike Parliamentary ones, so that this is not
985:
951:
910:
873:
1266:
852:
830:
750:
Perhaps, assuming good faith, the nominator wasn't aware of the discussion either?
734:
697:
652:
594:
283:
No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.
113:
1092:
57:
807:
1039:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
1261:
969:
be verified. (Plus it would hide all the uses of that broken template).
1130:
I don't see what "damaged" or "destroy" the article. Can you clarify?
646:
Yep, go ahead and create it! Refs added, I assume you'll be nominating
54:
1167:
Moves are not achieved by use of the delete function. Please see
909:
election results and sourced encyclopedic content in the interim.
1278:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
670:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:WikiProject
Politics of the United Kingdom
325:
Excuse me? What kind of .... are you telling? It is a proposal
932:
as it will then contain almost no unverified material...)
668:
Well perhaps you're unaware of an ongoing discussion at
929:
109:
105:
101:
165:
905:, especially if you press "Edit" and see that I have
1046:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
650:and other articles in the navigation template too.
179:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1292:). No further edits should be made to this page.
695:No, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks.
847:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
8:
845:Note: This debate has been included in the
825:list of England-related deletion discussions
823:Note: This debate has been included in the
844:
822:
1196:already copied the page to her userspace
483:. I take offence out of your words...
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
648:Broxbourne Council election, 2012
1190:it's probably worth noting that
1214:**Correction to the above its
903:Preston Council election, 2012
612:Crawley Council election, 2013
76:Crawley Council election, 2012
68:Crawley Council election, 2012
1:
1271:04:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
1251:16:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
1228:19:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1208:19:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1181:10:08, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1154:09:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1140:09:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1126:09:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1108:07:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1079:05:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1053:00:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
1013:16:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
994:15:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
979:15:49, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
960:15:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
942:15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
919:15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
896:15:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
882:15:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
861:14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
839:14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
816:14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
789:14:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
775:14:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
760:14:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
746:12:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
725:17:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
709:11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
683:10:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
664:10:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
642:08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
624:08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
606:08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
579:08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
540:10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
497:07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
447:10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
404:07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
386:23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
351:19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
321:16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
295:02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
269:00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
246:22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
224:21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
206:20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
62:15:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
1309:
479:And maybe you should read
1281:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
946:I don't think it is OR
329:the article out of the
998:As I said, I would be
1115:Night of the Big Wind
486:Night of the Big Wind
393:Night of the Big Wind
340:Night of the Big Wind
235:Night of the Big Wind
195:Night of the Big Wind
614:using your logic?
335:your own workspace
901:at what I did for
1055:
863:
850:
841:
828:
1300:
1283:
1200:The Rambling Man
1132:The Rambling Man
1116:
1100:The Rambling Man
1097:
1091:
1050:
1045:
1041:
1005:The Rambling Man
971:The Rambling Man
934:The Rambling Man
888:The Rambling Man
851:
829:
781:The Rambling Man
752:The Rambling Man
737:
700:
675:The Rambling Man
655:
634:The Rambling Man
616:The Rambling Man
597:
571:The Rambling Man
487:
394:
341:
288:
236:
196:
184:
183:
169:
117:
99:
34:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1290:deletion review
1279:
1235:Probably delete
1216:User:Lucy-marie
1192:User:Lucy-marie
1123:
1114:
1095:
1089:
1048:
1034:
992:
958:
917:
880:
735:
698:
653:
595:
567:crystal-balling
565:no references,
494:
485:
401:
392:
348:
339:
284:
243:
234:
203:
194:
126:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1306:
1304:
1295:
1294:
1274:
1273:
1253:
1211:
1210:
1184:
1183:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1156:
1119:
1082:
1081:
1071:DustFormsWords
1058:
1057:
1056:
1049:Black Kite (t)
1043:
1042:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
988:
954:
913:
876:
865:
864:
842:
819:
818:
800:
799:
798:
797:
796:
795:
794:
793:
792:
791:
712:
711:
692:
691:
690:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
626:
582:
581:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
550:
549:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
503:
502:
501:
500:
499:
490:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
409:
408:
407:
406:
397:
362:
361:
360:
359:
358:
357:
356:
355:
354:
353:
344:
302:
301:
300:
299:
298:
297:
276:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
251:
250:
249:
248:
239:
199:
187:
186:
123:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1305:
1293:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1264:
1263:
1257:
1256:Probably keep
1254:
1252:
1248:
1244:
1243:Peterkingiron
1240:
1236:
1233:
1232:
1231:
1230:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1217:
1209:
1205:
1201:
1197:
1193:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1170:
1166:
1163:
1155:
1151:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1124:
1122:
1117:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1094:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1054:
1051:
1044:
1040:
1038:
1033:
1032:
1014:
1010:
1006:
1001:
997:
996:
995:
991:
987:
982:
981:
980:
976:
972:
968:
963:
962:
961:
957:
953:
949:
945:
944:
943:
939:
935:
931:
926:
922:
921:
920:
916:
912:
908:
904:
899:
898:
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
870:
867:
866:
862:
858:
854:
848:
843:
840:
836:
832:
826:
821:
820:
817:
813:
809:
805:
802:
801:
790:
786:
782:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
763:
762:
761:
757:
753:
749:
748:
747:
743:
739:
738:
731:
730:
729:
728:
727:
726:
722:
718:
710:
706:
702:
701:
694:
693:
684:
680:
676:
671:
667:
666:
665:
661:
657:
656:
649:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
625:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
603:
599:
598:
591:
587:
584:
583:
580:
576:
572:
568:
564:
563:
559:
558:
541:
537:
533:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
498:
495:
493:
488:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
448:
444:
440:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
405:
402:
400:
395:
389:
388:
387:
383:
379:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
352:
349:
347:
342:
336:
332:
328:
324:
323:
322:
318:
314:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
305:
304:
303:
296:
292:
287:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
277:
270:
266:
262:
257:
256:
255:
254:
253:
252:
247:
244:
242:
237:
231:
227:
226:
225:
221:
217:
213:
210:
209:
208:
207:
204:
202:
197:
191:
182:
178:
175:
172:
168:
164:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
139:
136:
132:
129:
128:Find sources:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1280:
1277:
1260:
1255:
1234:
1213:
1212:
1187:
1164:
1120:
1085:
1061:
1035:
999:
966:
947:
924:
906:
868:
803:
733:
713:
696:
651:
593:
585:
561:
560:
491:
398:
345:
334:
331:articlespace
330:
326:
285:
240:
229:
211:
200:
188:
176:
170:
162:
155:
149:
143:
137:
127:
53:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1165:Speedy Keep
376:requests.--
153:free images
1239:WP:CRYSTAL
1220:Lucy-marie
1146:Lucy-marie
1066:WP:CRYSTAL
1000:reasonably
767:Lucy-marie
717:Lucy-marie
630:WP:CRYSTAL
628:Also, per
590:WP:CRYSTAL
532:Lucy-marie
439:Lucy-marie
378:Lucy-marie
313:Lucy-marie
261:Lucy-marie
259:mergers.--
216:Lucy-marie
190:WP:Crystal
50:not delete
1286:talk page
853:• Gene93k
831:• Gene93k
286:North8000
37:talk page
1288:or in a
1037:Relisted
765:space.--
481:WP:CIVIL
120:View log
39:or in a
1086:Neutral
986:doktorb
952:doktorb
948:as such
911:doktorb
874:doktorb
736:Lugnuts
699:Lugnuts
654:Lugnuts
596:Lugnuts
327:to move
159:WP refs
147:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1173:Warden
923:So it
907:hidden
562:Delete
212:Oppose
131:Google
97:delete
1267:talk
1169:WP:RM
990:words
956:words
915:words
878:words
808:Aequo
174:JSTOR
135:books
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1247:talk
1224:talk
1204:talk
1194:had
1188:Note
1177:talk
1150:talk
1136:talk
1121:talk
1104:talk
1075:talk
1062:Keep
1009:talk
975:talk
938:talk
930:this
892:talk
869:Keep
857:talk
835:talk
812:talk
804:Keep
785:talk
771:talk
756:talk
742:talk
721:talk
705:talk
679:talk
660:talk
638:talk
620:talk
602:talk
588:per
586:Keep
575:talk
536:talk
492:talk
443:talk
399:talk
382:talk
346:talk
317:talk
291:talk
265:talk
241:talk
230:move
220:talk
201:talk
167:FENS
141:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:not?
1262:DGG
1171:.
967:can
333:to
181:TWL
118:– (
52:--
1269:)
1249:)
1226:)
1218:--
1206:)
1198:.
1179:)
1152:)
1138:)
1106:)
1096:}}
1093:cn
1090:{{
1077:)
1064:-
1011:)
977:)
940:)
925:is
894:)
859:)
849:.
837:)
827:.
814:)
806:-
787:)
773:)
758:)
744:)
723:)
707:)
681:)
662:)
640:)
622:)
604:)
577:)
538:)
445:)
384:)
319:)
293:)
267:)
222:)
161:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
1265:(
1245:(
1222:(
1202:(
1175:(
1148:(
1134:(
1102:(
1073:(
1007:(
973:(
936:(
890:(
855:(
833:(
810:(
783:(
769:(
754:(
740:(
719:(
703:(
677:(
658:(
636:(
618:(
600:(
573:(
534:(
441:(
380:(
315:(
289:(
263:(
218:(
185:)
177:·
171:·
163:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
138:·
133:(
125:(
122:)
116:)
78:(
55:Y
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.