Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kuwait National Assembly No-Confidence Votes


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Kuwait National Assembly No-Confidence Votes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Motions of no confidence may be notable (1979 vote of no confidence against the government of James Callaghan; 1892 vote of no confidence against the government of the Marquess of Salisbury; etc.), but the fact that these motions were a) largely unsuccessful, or not even motions per se b) never against a Prime Minister and c) not covered in-depth by independent sources, leads me to propose deletion. We do record notable activities of parliaments, but do not compile, directory-like, the minutiae of their proceedings. Biruitorul Talk 02:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge sourced, notable votes to National_Assembly_of_Kuwait. If later organic and sourced growth calls for a separate article then so be it. TomPointTwo (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Verifiability, of course, is not tantamount to notability. We could start scouring Hansard or the Congressional Record and find votes being taken on every couple of pages; those too would be "sourced". Notability requires "significant coverage", something received neither by the topic as a whole nor by individual votes. - Biruitorul Talk 04:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For a subject with a dedicated article, yes. For individual components of articles they only need be sourced and relevant to the greater subject at hand. Hence my advocating merging the relevant, sourced votes to the parent article. TomPointTwo (talk) 05:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is quite notable stuff in the context of Kuwaiti politics. I've read about some of these in the past, and I follow Kuwaiti politics only in passing. Everyking (talk) 07:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete While not as bad as I expected, this is really just a list of events. Important ones should be mentioned in the context of larger events, or even have their own articles. But no need to list them all together. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While I don't like the setup of the article-- there are no results of an actual vote-- the topic of a legislature voting for an investigation of a member of the executive or judicial branch is notable. I don't see this as much different than a list of cabinet or high court nominees who failed confirmation (as an example in category form, see Category:Rejected nominees to the United States Supreme Court.  I don't agree with the idea of creating separate articles for each of these persons as an alternative to having a single article.  Mandsford (talk) 13:39, 4 January 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.