Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Liberal Party of Australia 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 No consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable transfer of power - this sort of thing happens to defeated governments every election. Orderinchaos 23:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: article has undergone major changes since nomination; see nominated version for context. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: article moved during AFD; new title is Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Actually, this is quite notable, as I suspect many Australians will be following the procedures and the candidates, and the ongoing event tag is quite appropriate. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The transfer of power is actually quite notable, but not in a way that merits a separate article.  It's a part of the fallout from the campaign.  In any case, they'll be choosing a new leader well before Christmas, possibly as early as the first week of December, so the life of the article is extremely short.  Get rid of it and incorporate its contents into other relevant articles.  (Later comment:  There have been probably hundreds of such post-election party elections in Australia; do we want an article about all of them?  If yes, who's going to do the work?  If not, how can we justify one out of hundreds?) --  JackofOz (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge with an appropriate article. Useful information, but not deserving of a separate article. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC) After the changes, i've changed my mind, Keep. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's keep the article as is for now, and when the new leader is chosen just rename the article after him and delete the redirect created by the page move. Okay, that's not the best idea I've ever had... --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 23:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Every one of the candidates has a comprehensive article - they've all been senior ministers in the outgoing government. Orderinchaos 23:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Can't really see any harm in the article. It's not spam or original research. Andjam (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- yes, this happens to defeated governments after every election, but why should Canada, Ireland, Japan and the United Kingdom regularily have articles on this (see Leadership election) while Australia should not? — Nightstallion 23:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a news item, not an encyclopaedia article. See WP:NOT. Relevant information can be quite easily covered in the relevant biographies and in the Liberal Party of Australia. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Jack of OZ's and OrderInChaos'scomments and because wikipedia is not wikinews! (noting edit conflict with MattInBgn = same opinion --Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 00:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The claim that this falls under "Wikipedia is not Wikinews" is quite obviously wrong, IMO -- we've got twenty-something articles on leadership elections in political parties. — Nightstallion 00:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - see WP:WAX - Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Also from Inclusion is not an indicator of notability: If editors fear that an article is being unfairly nominated for deletion, their arguments will carry more weight if they are couched in the notability guidelines or the relevant deletion precedent.  How does this article deal with the issue that inclusion of the subject matter in the articles on the Liberal Party and the candidates will not - I don't see the need for a separate article and am unconvinced by the fact that similar articles exist elsewhere.  This topic is unlikely to be article worthy in the future - ie it is a current event from which everybody will move on and only the fallout will be worthy - ie who the leader is and who missed out and that should be dealt with in the articles of those persons.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle talk 00:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per Nightstallion, or at the most smerge. This is a little different to many such relections in that the outgoing leader publicly endorsed a successor (Costello) whom everyone already expected would become the next leader, only for Costello to announce he wasn't standing. Grutness...wha?  00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and rename to 2007 Liberal Party of Australia leadership election. Important event with plenty of sources and with precedents in other countries. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rename: It should be Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007, if it takes place this year. — Nightstallion 00:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - if it stays a single paragraph non-event, we can merge later on. If it gets to be a bigger story, no point merging it now then realising we have to split it out again later on. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - BTW, the counter examples of Canada and UK aren't necessarily relevant because they often have delegates from around the country, not closed party meetings. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Actualy the main UK parties now ultimately elect their leaders through postal ballots (albeit with different rules on apportionment, candidate nomination and even prelimnary rounds to cut down the candidates with just MPs voting). However both major parties and the Liberals used to have MP only leadership elections (and the Liberal Democrats currently have an MP only election for the deputy leader) and we have articles on Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1965, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1975, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1989, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1990, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1995, Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, 1997, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1922, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1935, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1955, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1960, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1961, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1963, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1976, Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 1980, Liberal Party (UK) leadership election, 1967, Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2003 and Liberal Democrats deputy leadership election, 2006. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for now A leadership election for a major party in the Westminster System is often not just chosing someone to head the party in the House but about selecting a de facto Prime Ministerial candidate - why they were chosen (and how decisively) to head their party is encyclopedic. Leadership elections can often be key moments that determine the direction a party will take as well, whilst also often generating a mixture of deals and resentment that linger in the party. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You do realise the sort of useful information you're talking about will never be made publicly available? Unless there's a leak - and the parties always officially deny such leaked results - we will never know by what majority they became leader, or what reasons were given. May be different in other countries but the above is definitely the case in Australia. Orderinchaos 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   —Capitalistroadster (talk) 02:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Timeshift (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Emphatic Delete. In default of violent conflict (:-)), only the outcome is of potential notability and surely the only place in which to record this is in the Libs' ongoing list of federal leaders. Motivations, relevant personality and/or policy issues, etc, can be enshrined in articles on noteworthy persons, if any. Bjenks (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and many others. Many examples of "similar" articles have been provided. I would favour deletion of many of those examples also, but this case is even less article-worthy, as Orderinchaos points out. Even if the election were conducted publically, however, the fact is better documented in other articles than depicted as a stand-alone event. JPD (talk) 10:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but expand to cover the National Party of Australia leadership election as they are pretty permament coalition partners and the Liberal party deputy leadership election which are both also taking place. Leadership elections are studied for the effect they have on parties policies, personalities and electoral fortunes. Contested leadership elections for major political parties can generate plenty of comment and will be analysed by political historians for a substantial period.  This leadership election clearly meets any notability criteria that has ever been drawn up and as for the WP:NOT argument -this clearly states that 'topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial' and a quick google search already show substantial sources are available. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have expanded the article somewhat to demonstrate its potential, with plenty of potential for more expansion and would hope people would take another look at the article. It clearly needs to be moved to Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, 2007 but am reluctant to do it during this AFD. Davewild (talk) 20:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well done Davewild. This makes my strong keep even stronger and I hope make some people who have voted delete to change their mind. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Even though I've voted to delete the article, I've just made some edits to it in case we decide to keep it.  I've made the point that under Lib Party rules (and I think the ALP has a similar rule), after every general election all leadership positions are always declared vacant.  Even if Howard had been returned with an increased majority and a 20% swing in his favour, this election would still be happening.  In that sense, there's nothing particularly special about this election.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes but the election would almost certainly have not been contested in that circumstance and would not have received the substantial coverage in reliable sources which is what establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, this competition, and its outcome, will likely determine the political direction of the country substantially in the future. The title definitely needs to be changed though, as per Davewild above me.  Lankiveil (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Comment: I've moved the article, hope that's okay. — Nightstallion 13:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay by me. We just need to speedy delete the redirect once we've decided the fate of the article itself. --Blanchardb- Me  MyEarsMyMouth-timed 16:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no problem -- if noone else does it, I'll do it then. — Nightstallion 16:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is clearly a notable event, and I can't think of anything which it could be merged into. As it stands, the article is actually pretty good and well worth keeping. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect&rarr;Australian federal election, 2007&mdash;In reading the commentary above, it is clear from all parties (no pun intended) that the notability of the events related in the article are inextricably tied to the Australian federal election, 2007 and that the outcome of the Liberal Party internal election is notable but that the process for achieving that outcome is transient, mundane and not particularly notable. Therefore, I would argue that the internal post-election election (poor wording) should be confined to a subsection of the Federal election article rather than having its own article.  As it stands, the Federal election article does not cross-reference this article up for deletion; I will rectify that momentarily. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge any salient and sourced information into the article on the 2007 election, then Delete. Jame§ugrono 06:25, 4 December 2007 (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.