Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gedling Borough Council 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 no consensus. Wikipedians cannot agree about how to deal with this content. In closing this debate, I gave little weight to quite a number of the points raised. Specifically, I gave no weight to the ad hominem (or more accurately, ad feminem) allegations about User:Sport and politics' motives. I gave little weight to contentions that the election might be cancelled or that Gedling Borough Council might be abolished before 2015, because you can take it to the bank that neither of these things is going to happen. (Such an extensive reform of English local government would take more than a year to implement.) The contention that the elections are of local rather than national interest is quite true; the focus nationally will be on the general election taking place at the same time. However, I cannot connect "of local interest" with a "delete" outcome. Equally, it is quite accurate that people suffered and died so that Brits could get the vote, but I cannot connect this with a "keep" outcome for an article about a future local election. The argument advanced most clearly by Lankiveil and Trevj, that we know nothing substantive about the election from reliable sources, and so there is nothing for the article to say, deserves, and received, full weight. Because of this, I think it's highly persuasive that we should have a redirect here, but I cannot say there is as yet a real consensus to support that outcome. Discussions about a possible redirect should probably continue on the relevant talk page. Since this is a "no consensus" outcome at AfD, in accordance with our normal practice it will be in order to renominate the article for deletion in early course, although this is a plausible search term so I'd suggest exhausting the possibility of a redirect before bringing it back here.— S Marshall T/C 20:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC)'''

Gedling Borough Council election, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a predicted event and is not planned to take place until May 2015. The Mat 2014 elections have not even taken place yet. This article is way to premature and violates WP:crystal. The event is also not guaranteed to take place as the law between now and May 2015 may change or the Council may be abolished all are possible, just not likely so they throw the event in to a "this is not a 100% guaranteed to take place event" category. The article is also not of any value to Wikipedia this far out and therefor violate WP:indiscriminate This article should be deleted and recreated much closer to the time the actual election is scheduled to take place and candidate nominations have closed in April 2014. Sport and politics (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see this as a WP:CRYSTAL violation: it's usual to have articles on future elections when they are scheduled for a specific time, e.g. United States presidential election, 2016 - of course Barack Obama could bring in his nefarious plan to impose a New World Order and enslave all Americans in his network of secret concentration camps, but generally it's assumed the election will take place. Is there any reason to believe the law may be changed or the council might be abolished? --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment This doesn't appear to violate either of the policies cited. WP:CRYSTAL is basically about preventing unverifiable speculation - this does not fit into that category. As regards WP:indiscriminate there is plenty of precedence for this type of article being suitable for inclusion, and it has no relationship to any of the criteria in the policy. Just because it is early (it certainly is that!) does not make it either speculative or inappropriate. Bagunceiro (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment This page has been the target of a vendetta and vandalism by one user called 'Sport and Politics', who has maliciously re-directed the article elsewhere several times, which I have had to undo and re-direct back to the article several times, so now as that user can not get her own persional way she is trying to get the article deleted.  These elections are not speculation they are happening and candidates are being announced.  a) Elections are happening and are scheduled: http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/scheduledelections/ b) Boundary changes have been approved and are in law: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/east-midlands/nottinghamshire/gedling-fer  The page is both useful and informative. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I strongly suggest the above personal attacks are withdrawn: use of words like "vendetta" and "vandalism" are not welcome on Wikipedia and must be avoided. Sport and politics (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Wiki is here for everyone, you do not own the page nor do I. However, you redirecting the page away elsewhere, no less than FIVE TIMES, is not appropriate behaviour.  Followed up by submitting the page for deleting... Sure seems like a vendetta. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment It would be really petty and a shame to delete the page. As a local to the area, I find the page to be handy and helpful, it is well put together.  Yes its slightly early, but not an issue in my view... in addition as can be seen the area is naming candidates already and elections have been scheduled by Gedling Borough Council. --Verzarli (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -Handy and useful is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is for notable events. This event is not currently notable as it is too far in the future and contested elections are not guaranteed. I mean having a speculative 2015 local election article before the 2014 local elections have even taken place is madness. The only time elections will be guaranteed to to take place is when the official notices are published and not before. I have previously advocated this page being a redirect but not I am of the opinion this needs deleting to discourage other pages being created too far out and this page is similar to say US presidential articles too far in to the future. Plus naming candidates already is just pure speculation. Retaining this article will just lead to mass speculation being the focus of this article which must be avoided and deletion is the only way t avoid that happening and wasting the time of Wikipedia and turning this from an encyclopaedia article to a speculation blog page. Sport and politics (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sport & politics, that is a misleading comment you made, Gedling does not have any local elections in 2014. The next set of local elections are 2015, as per this article, this is hardly speculation, it has been stated and is scheduled: http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/scheduledelections/.  The various political parties themselves are already naming the candidates now, this is fact.  --Nottingham Politics (talk) 19:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


 * strong delete just because the event is scheduled and this article is "useful" are not reasons to establish notability. These future elections have zero impact or coverage outside this council area. LibStar (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * strong keep People fought and died for the vote, for freedom and democracy. Therefore all elections have established notability.  Besides if you search wiki, a number of UK local elections are covered.  Therefore people do find local elections notable. --Verzarli (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * no, not all elections have demonstrated notability, state and national elections yes but not all local elections and therefore, I highly doubt anyone died for these elections, but if you find such evidence, please let me know. I have found zero evidence of 2015 election coverage and this therefore fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see this violating WP:crystal since the elections are verifiable and almost certain to occur. The article is a bit early, but not that unreasonable so I don't see WP:indiscriminate applying either. I am One of Many (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep As per my comment above. Bagunceiro (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, I see no valid reason to delete other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT, Sure it's a bit early but certainly not CRYSTAL!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  17:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - I think a fundamental point is being missed here this event s not notable, It isn't even guaranteed to happen. The 2014 Local elections in England have not even taken place. This article is speculation and is far to far in the future. There is nothing stopping this being re-created closer to the time if the election takes place and the event actually gains independent third party sources to establish notability. Sport and politics (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only thing we know with any certainty is that the elections will happen in 2015 (and even that is not 100% certain). The rest of the article consists of empty templates for the results to be inserted into.  I think that the article can potentially be recreated once more is definitively known and serious campaigning begins, but at the moment it seems a little premature.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, slakr  \ talk / 10:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)



— Nottingham Politics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * keep Looking at most previous comments up until this point they are mostly in favour of the article. So it is a clear keep. --Nottingham Politics (talk) 05:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's just a blank template of no value until the election. If we were a few weeks away from the election I'd vote keep but this is just premature. Szzuk (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a verifiable scheduled event; I can see no speculation here. It is in the future, but that does not make it theoretical or hypothetical. Nor does the slim chance that it will not happen (assuming that eventuality would indeed be speculative!).
 * As regards "it´s just a blank template", two points: Firstly a glance through the edit history shows that this was not so until much of the content was removed on 5th May, again citing speculation as the reason (this appears also to be incorrect - I did not go through them all but those candidates that I did check have already been anounced). And secondly, Wikipedia is, and always will be, a work in progress. There is no problem with articles existing in an incomplete state.
 * My reading of the discussion above and elsewhere is that the notability of this article, were it to be created closer to the actual event, is acknowledged. And in my view, early (as opposed to speculative; they are not the same thing) creation is no bad thing. Naomhain (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * keep As per all my previous comments above. --Verzarli (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * you cannot !vote twice. LibStar (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment and compromise proposal - This is not a vote stating " I have said keep before" is not a valid reason there is no need t put up another keep from the same user s that just voting not discussing. The simplest solution keep the content hidden and redirect to the main local elections page until closer till the time the info can be added to the hidden parts and when nominations actually open then it can be un-redirected and unhidden. Sport and politics (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Userfy to User:Nottingham Politics/Gedling Borough Council election, 2015 per WP:EVENT, then create redirect to Elections in the United Kingdom. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 10:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * That, and the idea of embedding a redirect into the article to hide it, would have the same practical effect as a delete and as such I would oppose them for the same reasons as above. Naomhain (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think this article should be redirected away. The article is early but its valid, less than 12 months away now!  Everyone is using a lot of energy on this.  In addition I have also put back in the candidates already named.  They are not speculation,  I actually live in the area, these candidates are putting out there leaflets now, they are named. --Verzarli (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - This appears to be based on local speculation that x, y, z will be the candidates. Just because so and so is on a leaflet does not mean they will be on the ballot paper that is WP:synthesis and WP:OR. Even if it says candidate x for X ward. Also please provide the sources, "your word" or "so and so so so so it is true" is not good enough in this case. 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Source for candidates listed: Gedling Conservatives web-site http://www.gedlingconservatives.org.uk/ states it official twitter feed as @GedlingTories candidates publically named on their official twitter feed: Jan 30th, Feb 8th & Feb 14th. Ps you should sign your comments, otherwise one person may give the impression of being more than one person. --Verzarli (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * where is the third party coverage of this election in 2015? And evidence of people dying for this election as you claim? LibStar (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment LibStar - Third party coverage is in the Nottingham Post Newspaper, The Topper newspaper, The Dispatch newspaper. Gedling Borough Council website.  If you require evidence for people dying in order to win the British people the right to freedom and democracy, I suggest you read a history book.  Locally I suggest you visit the War memorial's in Gedling Borough and pay your respects to the dead. --Verzarli (talk) 05:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * can you supply specific articles, these seem local press? also War memorials do not establish that people died for the Borough Council election, that is a rather long bow on your part. for example, the world wars were not about fighting to establish Gedling Borough Council election. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2014 (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.