Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election campaign, 2010


 * 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   delete. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Australian federal election campaign, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Nothing here that doesn't belong on Australian federal election, 2010; seems to be a fork for expressing analysis and other WP:OR. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  01:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 05:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is an embarrassment. --Pete (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is no chance this article can be recovered. Barrylb (talk) 09:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as a matter of policy per WP:NOTNEWS. It's not uncommon for articles of this nature to stay up during a political campaign so that people can keep up with the latest developments, but the election is now history, and the historical record is covered in Australian federal election, 2010. Mandsford 15:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it my imagination, or did someone edit everyone else's comments? That's pretty well a "no-no" around here. Mandsford 01:42, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Responded to at User talk:Timeshift9. Timeshift (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and per Mandsford. This article duplicates the Australian federal election, 2010 article. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Out of date, OR, yuck. If someone wants to fix it, great, because it could be a legitimate content fork. But the present format of the article has to go. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, and if required, be bold and merge the content to appropriate sections in Australian federal election, 2010. Forgive me for being blunt, but the majority of the arguments proffered by those !voting delete are almost identical to the examples given in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.  In particular, I would point out that this is a wiki, and we don't delete articles simply because they're rubbish, we fix them.  Furthermore, I completely disagree that the article as it stands is wholly unsalvageable: it's structure and weight need quite a bit of work, but most of it is reasonably well referenced, and the individual sections are certainly not so terrible that the encyclopedia would be better off upon their complete removal.  -- Lear's Fool 11:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.