310:(involved) - A neutral closer would find reasonable arguments on both sides (Draft and Keep), relatively similar popularity between the two sides, the contributions to the article during the discussion, and the trend towards Keep against Draft strengthening as the discussion progressed. The closer in this instance did not assess or attempt to assess these elements, and did not provide a reason to find there was a consensus for Draft despite all this; the closure comment looked more like a vote for one side than an assessment of the discussion. The article should therefore be restored, without prejudice to any further deletion or merger discussions.
283:(and restore full article) as there were solid arguments made for keep, draftify, and merge. I strongly disagree with J2m5's comment that a no-consensus close should lead to re-draftifying. The April version of the article was substantially different than the version that was draftified in January, thus the draftify result on the January AFD has no bearing on the recent AFD. A merge discussion may be appropriate and can take place on the article talk page.
348:(involved) Being notable does not mean ready for mainspace which a number of editors made a convincing argument for. That the article continues to have predominantly blank spaces where the future candidates will be speaks volumes. If it is the case that consensus here finds overturn to no consensus then it should still be moved to draft because of the article creator moving it back to mainspace merely three months after
591:
represent a state and not a single electorate. Hence the unbalanced look of largely empty tables. It also has too much conjecture. The seat of North Sydney may well be abolished, so better to wait for the redistrubtion than list speculative pre-selected candidates. The issue of party pre-selection ballots were deemed as inappropriate and often unsourced in an earlier article
595:, but they have appeared again in this article, contrary to an AfD decision. A entry is made for an attempt by 2 candidates to share a seat in Higgins in Victoria. But this is an impossibility as only a single name can appear on the candidate nomination form. This non-encylopedic approach should be cleared up before this article can be considered for mainspace.
458:
rationale and if there's no consensus that there's a barrier to mainspace retention for policy-compliance reasons, there's no objective barrier to overcome to know when to mainspace, and, knowing this, the closer improvised a criterion upon which to allow returning to mainspace, but there's no force
468:
You have an implied argument that it being in draft will result in it not being improved. That argument is simply not born out by experience. As it stands now we have a article which claims to be about the candidates for the next
Australian federal election which has absolutely no idea who the vast
335:
applies. As the nominator notes, the closer appears to have selected an ad hoc criterion for the article to be moved back into mainspace, an invented criterion of inclusion that is not supported by policy and is contradicted by the nature of drafting being optional. The closer's idea about when the
382:
The version of the article is substantially different than the one discussed in
January. Therefore a no consensus close MUST result in the article being restored (without prejudice to renomination), and not default to an outdated discussion involving five participants. Likewise, G4 would not have
590:
we see only 34 potential candidates so far for 150 seats. But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear. Now senate potnetial candidates have been added, but these are the last to be pre-selected as they only
498:
This is a fair reading of the discussion, and I cannot find obvious error in the top line close. As SmokeyJoe says above, passing WP:N does not necessarily mean a stand-alone page is warranted. That said, looking at the draft page, there does seem to be multiple nominees already determined, so I
188:, and selected an arbitrary time for the article to be moved back into mainspace. Draft space is not a place for currently notable articles, and I believe the keep !votes were disregarded. Asking for this to be overturned to no consensus or keep so the article can be moved back from draftspace.
353:
163:
585:
the election is very unlikely to be called before 3rd of August. Additionally, the redistribution will not be finalised to Q3 or Q4 of this year. So Sept/Oct is a more reasonable time to review draft status. The article is trying to publish too much. Looking at this alternate draft
612:
This is completely untrue, the tables contain spaces for parties which contest all the seats. Regardless, this discussion isn't to determine whether the article should be deleted, but whether the closure of the deletion discussion was adequately representative of the discussion.
407:
for differences between being put into draft as consequence of the first AfD and being put back into mainspace) was the additional of a number of empty tables to be filled at a later date when candidates appeared. Notably those tables are almost completely empty.
336:
draft should be moved back is the closer's editorial idea, but other editors might have different ideas about when to move back. AfD closer can't prevent good-faith bold mainspacing other than through salting, and salting would have been clearly inappropriate. —
592:
349:
151:
513:
The majority of the edits since the last move the draft have been small. The only substantial edit was one I preformed adding in archived links to existing references which is not what I would call a change to content.
439:
good close. Knowledge (XXG)-notability does not guarantee the topic a page in mainspace, WP:Consensus May merge a notable topic. Merging may be done from draftspace. The draftified page is very drafty looking.
172:
459:
behind the improvised criterion, just creating tension, and that tension needs to be resolved by letting this harmless page harmlessly sit in mainspace where it will slowly be improved like any other article. —
78:
Absent consensus to overturn the "draftify" closure, it remains in force until the next
Australian federal election's date and candidates are more certain and there is more content for an article.
121:
117:
70:
352:
when there was no substantive difference to the article. I could for all intents and purposes probably have slapped it with a CSD G4 rather than nominating it for the
552:
That is the scope of the problem - because there are multiple reliably sourced nominees, the topic is no longer TOOSOON and is ready to be moved into mainspace.
48:
34:
43:
405:
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Draft%3ACandidates_of_the_next_Australian_federal_election&diff=1217634391&oldid=1199169820
39:
403:
At the time of taking it out of draft into mainspace, merely three months after the first AfD, the only substantial difference (refer to
180:
Closer erred by draftifying an article about an upcoming event which already contains content about the event and which does not violate
566:
229:
202:
610:
But the tabular format of this article reserves space for approx 600 to 700 potential candidates, many who will never actually appear.
469:
majority of those candidates are. That is evidenced by the vast amount of empty space found in the tables contained in the article.
632:
as a valid close. The question at DRV is whether the close was a valid close, not whether another close would have been valid.
582:
247:
21:
536:
They are referring to changes made since the article was nominated for deletion, not since the article was moved to draft.
264:
While Merge may have been a reasonable proposal, it was clearly not supported by a consensus of discussion participants.
652:
101:
17:
215:
I have absolutely no idea how I screwed the template up this badly and every attempt I make to fix it makes it worse.
637:
618:
558:
541:
315:
269:
221:
194:
391:
291:
641:
622:
604:
571:
545:
531:
508:
486:
463:
449:
425:
398:
373:
340:
319:
298:
273:
259:
234:
207:
90:
633:
455:
332:
185:
181:
600:
460:
445:
337:
614:
553:
537:
516:
471:
410:
358:
311:
265:
216:
189:
496:
Endorse close, promote to mainspace as new information has been added since the AFD nomination
504:
386:
286:
587:
255:
596:
581:(involved) there is a premise here that this information is needed now. But looking at
441:
81:
593:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/2023–24 Liberal Party of
Australia preselections
500:
499:
believe that whatever the result here, this page will be in the mainspace soon. --
251:
356:
and my speedy would have been in all likelyhood been accepted.
404:
158:
144:
136:
128:
118:Candidates of the next Australian federal election
71:Candidates of the next Australian federal election
8:
100:The following is an archived debate of the
63:
609:
250:as a more sensible outcome all round.
7:
655:of the page listed in the heading.
331:. Editors did not agree on whether
454:There was no consensus behind the
28:
583:Next Australian federal election
248:next Australian federal election
651:The above is an archive of the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Deletion review
1:
383:applied for the same reasons.
350:the first deletion discussion
678:
642:14:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
623:09:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
605:07:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
572:04:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
546:06:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
532:04:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
509:02:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
487:04:16, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
464:23:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
450:14:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
426:12:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
399:11:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
374:09:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
354:second deletion discussion
341:08:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
320:21:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
299:12:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
274:09:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
260:08:43, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
235:05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
208:05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
658:Please do not modify it.
329:Overturn to no consensus
308:Overturn to no consensus
281:Overturn to no consensus
107:Please do not modify it.
40:Deletion review archives
91:20:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
104:of the page above.
665:
664:
244:Overturn to merge
89:
669:
660:
588:User:J2m5/draft6
569:
561:
397:
394:
389:
297:
294:
289:
232:
224:
205:
197:
175:
170:
161:
147:
139:
131:
109:
88:
86:
79:
64:
53:
33:
677:
676:
672:
671:
670:
668:
667:
666:
656:
653:deletion review
634:Robert McClenon
565:
557:
392:
387:
384:
292:
287:
284:
228:
220:
201:
193:
171:
169:
166:
157:
156:
150:
143:
142:
135:
134:
127:
126:
105:
102:deletion review
82:
80:
62:
55:
54:
51:
46:
37:
31:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
675:
673:
663:
662:
647:
646:
645:
644:
627:
626:
625:
576:
575:
574:
550:
549:
548:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
377:
376:
343:
325:
324:
323:
322:
302:
301:
278:
277:
276:
240:
239:
238:
237:
178:
177:
167:
154:
148:
140:
132:
124:
112:
111:
96:
95:
94:
93:
61:
56:
47:
38:
30:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
674:
661:
659:
654:
649:
648:
643:
639:
635:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:Onetwothreeip
611:
608:
607:
606:
602:
598:
594:
589:
584:
580:
577:
573:
570:
568:
562:
560:
555:
554:SportingFlyer
551:
547:
543:
539:
538:Onetwothreeip
535:
534:
533:
530:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
512:
511:
510:
506:
502:
497:
494:
488:
485:
484:
483:
480:
477:
474:
467:
466:
465:
462:
457:
453:
452:
451:
447:
443:
438:
435:
434:
427:
424:
423:
422:
419:
416:
413:
406:
402:
401:
400:
396:
395:
390:
381:
380:
379:
378:
375:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
361:
355:
351:
347:
344:
342:
339:
334:
330:
327:
326:
321:
317:
313:
312:Onetwothreeip
309:
306:
305:
304:
303:
300:
296:
295:
290:
282:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:Onetwothreeip
263:
262:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
236:
233:
231:
225:
223:
218:
217:SportingFlyer
214:
213:
212:
211:
210:
209:
206:
204:
198:
196:
191:
190:SportingFlyer
187:
183:
174:
165:
160:
153:
146:
138:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
114:
113:
110:
108:
103:
98:
97:
92:
87:
85:
77:
76:No consensus.
73:
72:
68:
67:
66:
65:
60:
59:25 April 2024
57:
50:
49:2024 April 26
45:
41:
36:
35:2024 April 24
23:
19:
657:
650:
629:
578:
564:
556:
526:
523:
520:
517:
515:
495:
481:
478:
475:
472:
470:
436:
420:
417:
414:
411:
409:
385:
368:
365:
362:
359:
357:
345:
328:
307:
285:
280:
243:
227:
219:
200:
192:
179:
106:
99:
83:
75:
69:
58:
456:WP:CRYSTAL
333:WP:CRYSTAL
186:WP:TOOSOON
182:WP:CRYSTAL
84:Sandstein
44:2024 April
597:Teraplane
461:Alalch E.
442:SmokeyJoe
338:Alalch E.
20: |
630:Endorse
579:Endorse
501:Enos733
437:Endorse
346:Endorse
173:restore
137:history
393:Anchor
293:Anchor
252:Stifle
388:Frank
288:Frank
159:watch
152:links
52:: -->
16:<
638:talk
619:talk
601:talk
542:talk
527:Path
505:talk
482:Path
446:talk
421:Path
369:Path
316:talk
270:talk
256:talk
145:logs
129:edit
122:talk
32:<
524:hed
521:nis
518:Tar
479:hed
476:nis
473:Tar
418:hed
415:nis
412:Tar
366:hed
363:nis
360:Tar
246:to
164:XfD
162:) (
22:Log
640:)
621:)
603:)
544:)
507:)
448:)
318:)
272:)
258:)
74:–
42::
636:(
617:(
599:(
567:C
563:·
559:T
540:(
503:(
444:(
440:—
314:(
268:(
254:(
230:C
226:·
222:T
203:C
199:·
195:T
184:/
176:)
168:|
155:|
149:|
141:|
133:|
125:|
120:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.