Revision as of 14:49, 15 November 2011 editGene93k (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers468,057 editsm Listing on WP:DELSORT under Politics← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:51, 15 November 2011 edit undoLucy-marie (talk | contribs)10,326 edits →Crawley Council election, 2012Next edit → | ||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:::No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.<font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | :::No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.<font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font> (]) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
::::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.--] (]) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
*'''Delete''' no references, ] as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content. ] (]) 08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' no references, ] as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content. ] (]) 08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:51, 15 November 2011
Crawley Council election, 2012
- Crawley Council election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:Crystal. Can perfectly be moved to the workspace of the author untill there is something more to tell about these elections, say March/April 2012! Night of the Big Wind talk 20:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose - 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. --Lucy-marie (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- But having an empty article for the next few months is not really usefull. That is why I suggest to move it to your own userspace, untill there is more information available. Without candidates, it is pretty useless. But removing is silly. Night of the Big Wind talk 22:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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 mergers.--Lucy-marie (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, mergers are often discussed and recommended here as an alternative to deletion.North8000 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- 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.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Delete no references, crystal-balling as to which parties will contest which seats. Ineffectual article with unverifiable content. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:CRYSTAL, which states "1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Lugnuts (talk) 08:09, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- So ignore the fact it's entirely unreferenced and speculates as to the parties contesting the seats? And presumably we can create Crawley Council election, 2013 using your logic? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Also, per WP:CRYSTAL which goes on to state : " not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, go ahead and create it! Refs added, I assume you'll be nominating Broxbourne Council election, 2012 and other articles in the navigation template too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well perhaps you're unaware of an ongoing discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom 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 Misplaced Pages, speculates on the composition of parties running for particular seats and full of redlinked templates. All in all, pointless. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Yep, go ahead and create it! Refs added, I assume you'll be nominating Broxbourne Council election, 2012 and other articles in the navigation template too. Lugnuts (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - Aequo (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)