Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament (second nomination)


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 22:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for the 54th United Kingdom Parliament
This page was originally nominated back in March (see here). There was no consensus to delete, but there was an expectation that the article be updated and maintained. In early September it was prodded, without contest, but I'd like to run this through AfD again instead. Note that the only extant section is A-C, and it only goes up through Berwick. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I prodded this earlier this week, and was a delete vote in the first AfD. There are many reasons why I think this article should be deleted. At the very core of this is the fact that this article is redundant. Each and every individual constituency article has the list of candidates nominated, and will have running up to the next election. There are plentiful links to the constituencies - such as Constituencies in the next United Kingdom general election - and each notable candidate will have articles here too. As Mackensen says, this article only goes up to A-C, and has not been updated in any fashion since the last AfD. The article would also be prone to vandalism, could be a magnet for vandals, and would mean the duplication of information across hundreds of existing pages. In the last AfD, the consensus seemed to point to the article needing updated for it to survive - I don't think it has. I would request therefore Delete. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The article must stay hopelessly incomplete - 'Unknown, Unknown, Unknown' etc.. - right up until a few months before the election (in 2009 most likely) as nominations for candidates are not confirmed until such a time.  Also the title 'Candidates for the 54th UK Parliament' is pure invention.  As far as I am aware no-one refers to a (UK) General Election using such a term.  Marcus22 12:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Completely pointless at any time to have a list of candidates. Even if it could be accurate, it's listcruft that should not be here. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Catchpole 12:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - highly useless. Both Marcus22's comments above are correct. It seems to me there may be a case for such an article once the election is called and nominations have closed, but not now. BTLizard
 * Delete we have ample time to cover the next general election, it will be over and done with before the deadline. Why the rush? Guy 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Further comment - just a thought on the mention of maintainability above. Such an article would be impossible to maintain until the election is called because until the election is called there can be no nominations and therefore no candidates. You could list sitting MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates but it would be misleading to imply that members of either group will inevitably be candidates when the election comes around. And then there's the question of boundary changes. Are any outstanding, and if they are, does the list reflect that? BTLizard 14:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment You are absolutely right. The list seems to reflect some of the proposed and agreed boundary changes but that does not mean much when it ends at Berwick! doktorb wordsdeeds 14:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete its too projecting too far in the future to have any value for a wikipedia article now. Arbusto 17:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete - frankly daft and full agreement with Peripitus Nigel (Talk) 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - for all the reasons above, and for the fact that any "prospective" candidates do not technically become candidates until the Election is called, for technical reasons allied to the accounting of expenditure. - fchd 20:48, 17 September 2006 (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.