Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/By-elections to the 29th Canadian Parliament


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

By-elections to the 29th Canadian Parliament

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing can be written about this. No by-elections happened in Canada this year and so there doesn't need to be an article about this. There should just be a note about it in the parent article which should be kept. Any year that has enough info for its own article can be split, but this is not an article, it is a note that can never be expanded upon.  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  22:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Del ♉ sion 23   (talk)  23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  Del ♉ sion 23   (talk)  23:02, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Delete Little point. Any link could be blacked and clarified. Outback the koala (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There was no content to spilt out. 117Avenue (talk) 03:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No content of any value that could not be in the parent article. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 13:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, no worthwhile content.  PK  T (alk)  15:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unless a valid redirect could be performed.  Automatic Strikeout  ( T •  C ) 01:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Criteria for speedy deletion no context db-nocontext.Moxy (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I did things this way for maintainability. There are at least 2 pages into which this article has been transcluded. If in the future things change (unlikely I know) then only this article needs to change and not all of the other articles. Sometimes when you focus on 1 thing, it is difficult to see the big picture. 117Avenue is the only editor here that has shown any interest in the discussions that caused this article to exist. 117Avenue has asked for a delete so, presumably, 117Avenue is ok about the consequences of a delete. Op47 (talk) 14:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment What exactly is there being transcluded here? Why not just say the same thing twice? It's not as if someone's going to go back in time and cause a byelection. By transcluding you're only saving about 50 bytes anyway...  Del ♉ sion 23  (talk)  15:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. With the only content being No by-elections called., I don't think it's needed. —  J J J   ( say hello ) 17:41, 2 December 2012 (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.