Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pure speculation. There is not yet a leadership election, and "Next" is an unencyclopaedic title. Possibly should be speedied. Stephenb (Talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  Nordic   Dragon  12:22, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Firstly, "Next" is used for the Conservative Party leadership election and it is on the same basis. I would also argue that this is not speculation because of the nature of the leader. Corbyn is someone who is opposed by the majority of his party in Parliament and many of them have publicly made clear that he should not lead. Also, the level of briefings to the press, articles (from people within the Labour Party) and polling make this something akin to a political inevitability as opposed to speculation. --Cindy&#39;s Cafe (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (as nominator) Please let me see your Crystal ball. As for the Conservative article, that exists because Cameron has said that he is standing down and therefore there are legitimate reasons for having an article, there being plenty of reliable sources that such an event will occur. Stephenb (Talk) 17:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not know when Cameron will stand down. These decisions can easily be reversed. Corbyn will be challenged and this is not reliant on speculation but from a number of sources (including members of the shadow cabinet).--Cindy&#39;s Cafe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Complete speculation that fails WP:CRYSTAL and largely fails WP:RS. No doubt it will happen sooner rather than later, particularly as Corbyn is unpopular among the PLP, but let's wait till then before starting an article about it. This is Paul (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the article is about the nature of the Labour Party. It might be worth mentioning the various interpretation of the rules in regards to a challenge for the leadership of the Labour. Joe Haines option, whether Corbyn will get on the ballot or whether he will automatically qualify. This could be mentioned.--Cindy&#39;s Cafe (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone's head starting to hurt? This is Paul (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. WP:CRYSTAL (which has already been mentioned) states: "expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". The Tory election is almost certainly happening as Cameron has announced his intentions. In Labour's case, an election will presumably happen at some point, but the article is about a speculative challenge to Corbyn's leadership and this is, fairly unequivocally, not presently "almost certain to take place". Wait until it's announced. I don't understand the nom's point about "next", though: "next" is a common usage for articles about upcoming elections. — Nizolan  (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Huh? An election will almost certainly happen in future (unless you think Corbyn will stay as Labour leader forever). Cameron has announced his intention to step down, though events may change (for eg. Blair's resignation). This is exactly the same because Labour moderates have made clear their intention to challenge Corbyn before the next general election and that would trigger an election. It would also be a notable event. So therefore this page should be safe from deletion. --Cindy&#39;s Cafe (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, an election will happen in the future; no, the election described in this article is not almost certain to happen in the future. — Nizolan  (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You've just contradicted yourself. You can't say an election will happen in the future and an election may not happen in the future. Either way, there is an article about the next Tory leadership election because Cameron has signalled intent to resign. There should be an article about the next Labour leadership election because Labour MPs have signalled intent to challenge Corbyn and it is a very big issue in current politics.--Cindy&#39;s Cafe (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think what probably meant was that the scenario described in this article is not certain. Yes, at some point Corbyn will cease to lead the Labour Party, thus triggering a leadership election, but that won't necessarily be because of a challenge to his leadership. He may go on to fight the next election, lose and fall on his sword, so to speak. Or Labour may fare badly in the polls before then, requiring him to feel he should resign. We don't know the future and we shouldn't speculate with articles like this.  This is Paul (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. And in any case, the assertion that "Labour MPs have signalled intent to challenge Corbyn" is flatly false. The article cites two sources to claim that people have signalled such an intention and neither one actually demonstrates this (, ; note as well that the second article is from October last year and currently Simon Danczuk is not even a Labour member!). — Nizolan  (talk) 20:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Heh, I just wasn't aware of that. I was just thinking that, in paper encyclopaedias at least, "Next" wouldn't occur in the title of any article, since people might be reading it after the event occurred.  You probably wouldn't get it on here, either, for other things like "Next US President" or "Next Start Trek Film" or whatever - usually there's some defining qualifier that makes the title less 'present'.  I guess politics might be an exception..?  Anyway, seemed uncommon to me! Stephenb (Talk) 10:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! — Nizolan  (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, too speculative per nom and above. Not keen on Conservative Party version in advance of large-scale media discussion, but at least that leader has stated he will not stand by 2020. Rwendland (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Kind of interesting, but it belongs in a political blog or news site and not an encyclopaedia. Shritwod (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2016 (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.