Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Crawley Council election, 2012

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lucy-marie (talk | contribs) at 10:38, 16 November 2011 (→Crawley Council election, 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:38, 16 November 2011 by Lucy-marie (talk | contribs) (→Crawley Council election, 2012)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Crawley Council election, 2012

(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)

Excuse me? What kind of .... are you telling? It is a proposal to move the article out of the articlespace to your own workspace . No merger, no deletion, just a move to another sector of Misplaced Pages. Nothing gets lost, it is only parked on a by-road instead of on the motorway. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This is a discussion to delete the article, if there is a wish to move the articles to another place on Misplaced Pages (including a userspace)then a request a move is required. Using deletion request for requesting an aticle be moved to another part of Misplaced Pages is an abuse of deletion requests.--Lucy-marie (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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? Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And maybe you should read WP:CIVIL. I take offence out of your words... Night of the Big Wind _talk 07:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

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 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.--Lucy-marie (talk) 10:38, 16 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)

No, I wasn't aware of that discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

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 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.--Lucy-marie (talk) 17:01, 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)

Categories: