Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chempaka by-election, 2015


 * 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   Speedy Keep. The nomination was withdrawn (Non-admi closure)

Chempaka by-election, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article of no lasting importance. Wikipedia is not a directory for every information, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL applies. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 05:02, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This article is of notability since it describes the by-election that will be held for Chempaka after the death of its assemblyperson and Menteri Besar Nik Aziz. If going by your argument we should delete all political articles including the US Presidential elections, etc. You should be contributing to articles in Wikipedia instead of creating meaningless logs for Articles for deletion.  Barisanburok (talk) 13:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC) — Barisanburok (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * , unfortunately you have no idea of how things work here. Do you? Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 15:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Very simple, instead of spending a majority of your time trying to delete articles in Wikipedia you should be spending your time creating and contributing to new articles. That's how Wikipedia grows in the long run. Barisanburok (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is certainly not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which says that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". This by-election is almost certain to take place and there is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. A very quick google news search easily shows the plentiful coverage to establish notability - see this search. We cover by-elections to sub-national government bodies already such as Category:Australian state and territorial by-elections and to describe a by-election as the sort of routine event WP:NOTNEWS describes, is pretty impossible given the nature of by-elections. Davewild (talk) 08:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists is usually not a valid argument to keep articles on Wikipedia. However, the article is of no lasting importance in its current state. Considering an encyclopedic article for this by-election will probably be suitable when the result is announced. Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance (the aftermath and result of the election in this case). I'm glad you made reference to Category:Australian state and territorial by-elections and Category:By-elections to the Scottish Parliament . None of the by-election in the categories exist without a result (which give the articles the historical, enduring significance). The fact that there are lots of informations from different news source does not make the subject a topic of encyclopedia now. Wikipedia is not a Repository for every information. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:09, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the dates when any of those Australian by-election articles were created (the ones in the last 5 years or so). I think you will find almost all of them were created before the by-elections occurred. Also you are wrong that none of them are around without a result - see Gippsland South state by-election, 2015. I completely disagree with you that this amount of coverage of a by-election could be described as routine. Routine coverage would cover events such as "x political leader launches policy" and "x politician resigns to be their family", which will get sufficient coverage, but are routine events that should not get separate articles. Your approach would mean no election articles could get articles before the election dates which is not wikipedia practice. Davewild (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The only things that make me doubtful about this one arethat the government is not fielding a candidate, making the result a fait accompli, and that the by-election is at a state level. Nonetheless, by-elections, even at state level, are always massive events in Malaysia, as the significant media coverage attests. And the government's controversial decision not to field a candidate and test its popularity arguably makes this more noteworthy. Finally, to delete this would reek of systemic bias given that we have long accepted by-elections as worthy of articles in Western countries, even at a state/provincial level. The WP:CRYSTAL argument is, of course, absurd given that it is a definite and scheduled, albeit future, event. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nomination Withdrawn: based on the arguments of various editors above. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 08:54, 15 March 2015 (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.