Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marshall Islands presidential election, 2012


 * 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   redirect to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Marshall Islands presidential election, 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The Marshall Islands does not hold presidential elections. The president is elected by parliament in what is part of the general election process. This year's election of Loeak was fairly unsurprising (he's a veteran and an iroijlaplap) and uneventful (gets exactly 28 hits on Google news). It will never be more than a stub, and was easily merged into the general election article (of which it is an essential part and will need to be discussed under anyway).  Night w   15:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The first statement is simply wrong; just because the election is indirect does not mean that "the Marshall Islands [do] not hold presidential elections". I'm personally in favour of a complete set of articles on all elections, whether eventful or not. — Nightstallion 15:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the vote was part of the general election that already has an article. It doesn't make sense to make a separate stub when we already have a (stub) article for the whole election. We only do that when the parent article becomes too long (WP:CFORK).  Night w   16:04, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oceania-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect, to the page about general election, per discussion above. Muslim lo Juheu (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * support per nightstallion, the election FOLLOWED the general election. a la like india's indirect presidential elections. timing is coincedental.Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Please tell me that you know what the definition of a general election is? A general election is a legislative election and presidential election combined—the timing is not a "coincidence".  Night w   08:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In theory i agree completely. In practice and on WP its NOT the same across election articles. particuarly in parliamentary systems...grants Marshall Islands, but sinc eit was nt at the same time by convention they should be seperate articles. And you know in practice its NOT the same.Lihaas (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's accurate to say that a general election must be a legislative election and a presidential election combined. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles such as United Kingdom general election, 2010 for a country that has never had a president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Even an indirect election for the presidency of a sovereign nation (or territory) deserves an article. Scanlan (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said, we have one. It's Marshall Islands general election, 2011. This is a fork.  Night w   02:54, 18 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect there's nothing here that can't be put in the 2011 elections article, especially given it's an offshoot of those events. Leaving this an independent article would be somewhat akin to making an article on the House of Commons approving a prime minister, which doesn't make much sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:39, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 11:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge to Marshall Islands general election, 2011. This isn't a separate topic from the general election; it's more an aspect of the general election. Both articles are quite short anyway and it would not be problematic to combine them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Already done. There's no content that isn't duplicated.  Night w   07:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't delete. I have no opinion on keeping or merging, but it's obvious that someone elected the president quite recently in the aftermath of the general election.  This is not the type of content that should be removed from the encyclopedia.  Nyttend (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, not "in the aftermath of the general election"—the general election is the election of the president.  Night w   07:57, 27 January 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.