Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Southend West by-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 per WP:SNOW. The consensus here is that reliable sources covering the situation as though the by-election is certain to occur (there's no question of if but when, and the major political parties are already announcing their intentions) relieves any concerns about WP:TOOSOON or WP:CRYSTAL. There are valid concerns about the current title since the date of the by-election is not known, but those can be dealt with through normal editorial process. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Southend West by-election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. The article is currently completely original research with no sources talking about the by-election itself. In particular, the claim "the by-election is likely to be sixth or joint fifth" is cited to this source which does not mention anything of the sort. The prose is mostly a copy-paste of Southend West (UK Parliament constituency) with a small side-order of Murder of David Amess.

I've no objections to this being moved to draft; it's almost certain sources for the by-election will exist in due course, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball or a newspaper, so we need to wait until they appear. As all political parties have suspended campaigning following the murder, I suspect nobody in government is going to rush this.

Advance notice to anyone !voting "keep" - unless you bring sources with your argument, I will be unimpressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - The synthesis of "seat is vacant from death" and "vacant seats trigger a by-election" - both of which are heavily publicized - is trivial, even for unfamiliar readers. I think we're dealing with an edge case of attributable, where no published sources exist, though any challenge to this synthesis is limited to "while obviously true, noone reliable said this yet". I think an AfD would be better, but do not object to this PROD (yet). LenaAvrelia (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Object - Okay, I do object to this PROD. LenaAvrelia (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not a PROD, it is a formal AfD. There was a PROD: it was initiated with, but ended less than two hours later - specifically, at the exact moment that was saved. PRODs are not discussed, so you cannot "object" to it on this page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Southend West (UK Parliament constituency) until such time as the Speaker of the House of Commons issues a Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to send a writ to the Returning Officer for the constituency. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * It has not been prior practice to wait for a writ before having an article, nor would that be following Wikipedia policy. We've had articles before the writ for every by-election I can remember going back >10 years. Maybe this article was started too early, but the pattern has usually been the same: an MP dies, an article gets created perhaps too early, we have a debate about it, but we end up keeping it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There will certainly be a by-election and so it's reasonable to start a placeholder.  The worst case would be merger to the article about the constituency pending more details.  If you delete it then you're just inviting recreation and so an alternative is more sensible.  What we really don't need is this AfD page. Tsk.  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As a minor procedural remark, a consensus to "draft" (which is a possible outcome) will involve the mainspace page being deleted per WP:G6. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:59, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the constituency article until there's actually been significant coverage in RS to make a separate article worthwhile. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep There is now bound to be a by-election in the next few months, even if the article does not say much at present, it's a bit pointless to delete it when it will just have to be re-created very soon. PatGallacher (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I do on balance think it's a bit distasteful to set up an article on a future by-election before there was any real news coverage of it. Also, it's not clear that the election will happen in 2021. The Parliament website says "A new Writ is usually issued within three months of the vacancy. There have been a few times when seats remained vacant longer than six months." In other words, it's possible the election could be next year. So if the article is kept I suggest Move for now to something like "Future Southend West by-election" for accuracy. Blythwood (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added this citation, which gives this article as many citations as 2021 Old Bexley and Sidcup by-election. I agree with : maybe this article was created too quickly, but we're going to have this article, so it seems pointless to delete it and then re-create it. I also, though, do agree with : there's a high chance that this and the Old Bexley & Sidcup by-election will be in 2022. Bondegezou (talk) 15:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a second citation specifically about the by-election that's now been added. Saying the same thing are also and . Surely a strong keep now. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: I was the PROD contester; a good-faith but inexperienced editor changed Ritchie's valid rationale and replaced it with drivel, and I did not notice until just now. That said, considering the article for 2016 Batley and Spen by-election was created just a few hours after Jo Cox was similarly assassinated, I think it's fine. A page move to future election is in order however, as we don't know if this will occur in 2021 or 2022. Curbon7 (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * a good-faith but inexperienced editor changed Ritchie's valid rationale and replaced it with drivel - when was that? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , nevermind, I think I'm going insane lol. It was never changed. Curbon7 (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's what happened with other by-elections this Parliament: Bondegezou (talk) 17:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hartlepool: Hill resigned 16 March, article created same day, no PROD/AfD
 * Airdrie and Shotts: Gray announced he would be resigning on 6 Nov 2020, but formally resigned on 24 Mar 2021, article created 24 Mar 2021, no PROD/AfD
 * Chesham and Amersham: Gillan died 4 Apr, article created next day, no PROD/AfD
 * Batley and Spen: Brabin elected to Mayor on 6 May having said she would resign as an MP if so elected, article created 9 May, Brabin resigned 10 May, no PROD/AfD
 * Old Bexley and Sidcup: Brokenshire died 7 Oct, article created 8 Oct, no PROD/AfD
 * Keep: It's a no-brainer that, unless a dissolution is imminent (such as in October 2019), the death or resignation of an incumbent member of the lower house leads to a by-election sooner or later. It has been standard practice for as long as we can remember to begin work on the by-election article as soon as the vacancy opens irrespective of how long it takes to actually move the writ. If this election happens after December then a simple move from 2021 to 2022 will suffice.Robin S. Taylor (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Some fringe parties and independents will probably stand. JJARichardson (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the main constituency article. We are perhaps hasty in throwing up an article the moment an MP dies. "Candidates might stand" is against CRYSTAL so I can't support an article on that basis. doktorb wordsdeeds 23:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment We have 4 citations saying there will be a by-election. That satisfies any WP:CRYSTAL concerns, I would've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just re-checked. We're at at least 8 RS pieces talking about a by-election, as a quick Google News search shows. I suggest that withdraws this nomination given their concerns are clearly now satisfied, and we change this and the Old Bexley by-election article names to "Future XXX by-election" given no certainty over a 2021 date. Bondegezou (talk) 09:37, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and the only sources that talk about the election itself are this London Standard piece and this tweet. So there's two, not eight. I cannot withdraw the AfD as there is not a unanimous "keep" consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:26, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies to for misunderstanding the nomination withdrawal rules.
 * The article contains three citations about a by-election: Kent Live, Evening Standard and a tweet from the political correspondent of Sky News. I suggested above a quick Google News search; "southend by-election" yields: iNews, The Independent, Basildon Canvey Southend Echo, Free Radio, and Gloucestershire Live. A moment's more searching also yields an ITV report. There are also articles from sources that fail WP:RSP: the Express and Mail. GB News is not mentioned in RSP, so you all can decide for yourselves whether it's reliable or not. I gave two more sources in an earlier comment above. Ritchie333: your nomination was based on the article being completely OR (as it was at the time) and you said we need sources. We now have >8 reliable sources. Events have overtaken this AfD: let's close it as soon as possible. Bondegezou (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There are two situations where a by-election would not occur. One is a dissolution of parliament (already mentioned), the other is that only one valid nomination is in the hands of the returning officer after the deadline for nominations has passed - that candidate would then be returned unopposed, with no need for a by-election (this is rare in Parliament, but not uncommon at the local government level (example), particularly in areas where one party dominates and the others simply don't want to waste their money). Since nominations have not yet opened, we don't know how many are certain to be submitted. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is only one valid nomination, that person is elected unopposed, but a by-election is still considered to have occurred. We have multiple Wikipedia articles on Parliamentary by-elections with only one nomination. That would not be a reason to not have an article. Bondegezou (talk) 07:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * See 1954 Armagh by-election, 1953 North Down by-election, 1952 North Antrim by-election, 1951 Londonderry by-election, 1946 Hemsworth by-election, July 1922 North Down by-election, February 1922 North Down by-election, 1920 Middleton and Prestwich by-election, 1921 East Dorset by-election, 1922 Liverpool Exchange by-election and 1922 Banbury by-election for examples of uncontested by-elections with articles. Bondegezou (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment In practice "Candidates might stand" hardly CRYSTAL, when was the last time there were no candidates nominated in a UK parliamentary election? There might be a legitimate debate about whether it is inappropriate to create a by-election article the moment an MP dies, but this should be dealt with consistently.  There might also be a legitimate debate about whether, if a vacancy occurs relatively late in the year, we can assume that the by-election will take place the same year, but this is a complex issue. PatGallacher (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I might have misunderstood some recent comments. However the last time, outside Northern Ireland, there was an unopposed by-election was the 1946 Hemsworth by-election, and it has an article.  There probably will be at least one fringe candidate, but even if there isn't, the first candidate to be returned unopposed since 1946 would also be notable. PatGallacher (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As previously mentioned, there will almost always be a by-election following the death of an MP. I do agree that it may have been a bit insensitive to launch the article as soon as the Hon. Amess died, but now that we have the article up, I believe we should focus on fixing its issues ready for when there is a by-election. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * He was never appointed to the Privy Council, so not "Right Honourable". 94.13.141.49 (talk) 04:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, have changed it. XxLuckyCxX (talk) 13:08, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else. This election seemed inevitable given what happened, and only an extraordinary circumstance could prevent this from happening now. Love of Corey (talk) 01:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there will be a by-election. User:力 (power~enwiki, π,  ν ) 02:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see why we are having this debate as I do believe once a seat is vacant, a by-election has to happen unless it is close to the time of dissolving parliament for a general election and one of those is not expected until 2024. I do agree with those that have commented stating that it may not be 2021 when the by-election is planned but surely one is going to happen - if not for the remaining time we have in 2021 then definitely in 2022. Therefore, I say keep and although there may not be much on the article currently, there will be as time goes on. RyanPLB (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Much like the above comment, the OP for this discussion should invest the time it took to open this discussion into improving the article rather than nominating it for deletion. Multiple sources are now talking about this by-election, including the notable facts that other major parties have said they are not running a candidate due to the circumstances. Deleting the article would make no sense as a by-election will be going ahead, as the government are not about to suddenly dissolve parliament.  Guyb123321 (talk) 17:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep- the article for the 2016 Batley and Spen by-election was created on the same day as Jo Cox's murder. The creation of this page is in line with previous by-elections caused by the murder of the incumbent. Alextheconservative (talk) 18:02, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - er... what? Multiple sources parties discussing how they won't stand (with sources). Coverage in national press. We have pages on all the other by-elections (and a page for the "Next United Kingdom general election"). Besides, if somehow there wasn't a by-election, that would be even more newsworthy. --h2g2bob (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Ridiculous AFD180.241.91.74 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify as too soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:TOOSOON states, "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." However, multiple reliable sources have been given in this discussion and in the article, so how does TOOSOON apply? Bondegezou (talk) 08:07, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep My reading of WP:TOOSOON is simply that for verifiability, there's no point having an article that has no possibility of verifiable, sourced content. There clearly is verified and substantive content even if the number and identity of the candidates is not presently known—for instance, the announcement by both the LibDems and Labour that they won't be running candidates in Southend West is an important thing noted in the article with sources (and now seems to be a de facto convention following the decisions by the Conservative Party to do likewise in Batley and Spen following the murder of Jo Cox). There will be something that happens with the seat, whether that's an unopposed nomination of the Conservative candidate, or a poll involving a Conservative candidate and some small party/independent candidates, and to delete a sourced article while we wait for which of these outcomes is to happen would seem to be a triumph of WP bureaucracy over sense. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, the article has sources and it's not crystalballery to realise that the death of a sitting MP means there's going to be a by-election. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:22, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it was created a couple of days WP:TOOSOON, and at that time was probably WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. But now there is information from main parties about no candidates, and therefore clear the bi-election will happen. The only questionable bit is the sentence The by-election is likely to be the fifth or sixth to the 58th Parliament, following the death of James Brokenshire, MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup, on 7 October- since that seems to be WP:SPECULATION. But that's not a reason to delete the article. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.