Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010


 * 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   Keep due to clear WP:CONSENSUS and withdrawal by the nominator. (Non-admin closure) Johnsemlak (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •


 * No certainty that there will be an election
 * No factual knowledge about it (date, candidates...)
 * No confidence that it will take place in 2010 Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep It know it violates WP:CRYSTAL and it's not been announced. Its will take place fairly soon, probably mid January, early Feb 2010. It think for all the duplication of efforts, it's worth leaving for the time being. Its certain the WP editor will be coming back to complete it. scope_creep (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't actually violate WP:CRYSTAL, as it meets the first exception listed: it is "notable and almost certain to take place". Warofdreams talk 22:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is certain there will be an election, even though it hasn't yet been called (see, e.g. next UK general election for a parallel situation). The date hasn't been set, but there are declared candidates, and there is already sourced information about the election in the article.  It might not take place in 2010, but that's a reason to propose a rename, not deletion. Warofdreams talk 22:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, 1) The election will take place as the ruling to void the general election result by the election court cannot be overturned. 2) There is factual knowledge on the page, discussing how the election came about and the declared candidates. 3) The title being inaccurate is not a reason to delete the page. If the election does not take place in 2010, it is very easy to just move the page. --Philip Stevens (talk) 23:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is bending the rules of WP:CRYSTAL a little, but as we are likely to know in a matter of weeks whether Phil Woolas gets his way in the Court of Appeal. In the event that he does, there's still scope for an article about the court case (which now is a notable landmark case in its own right, whatever the outcome), and the content can be merged into that. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the by-election will take place even if Woolas is able to succeed in a judicial review - his best potential outcome would be to be permitted to stand. The by-election will only not take place if it is overtaken by an unexpected general election, or in the implausible circumstance that Parliament votes against holding one. Warofdreams talk 23:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Its now a certainty that there will be a by-election as previous result has been voided, this cannot be changed. All any subsequent judicial review can do is award compensation, although this is very unlikely indeed. -  Gallo glass  00:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it's certainly happening - even if Woolas' appeal was on the facts of the case, it wouldn't succeed, but the descion of an election court is final by law, so Galloglass is quite right. The candidates have been declared, but even if they hadn't that wouldn't be grounds for deletion. Procedural bad nomination grounds: the year not being known is not a reason for deletion. ninety:one  00:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Enough already: OK, no offence intended in the nomination, and clearly consensus is for retaining it. I had apparently misunderstood the basis of the appeal.  However, I maintain that an article that can give neither the date nor the candidates (giving two PPCs is not the same as saying that the candidates have beed declared) is premature in its publication, and two of those defending the article confess that it does seem a breach of CRYSTAL.
 * "We are likely to know in a matter of weeks" seems to be a strange defence for promulgating something today: "there's still scope for an article about the court case" is not really a defence for an article about a putative election. Equivalent articles in the projects I spend more time on would not survive a AfD on that basis. The 2018 FIFA World Cup will surely take place, and a large article will appear there in due time, but as yet dates and participants are unknown, so the article is not yet in existence (except as a redirect): maybe that is what should happen to this, at least until a date is announced, redirecting to the appropriate section of Woolas' article.  I'm most surprised to see that such an article such as next UK general election exists, consisting of essentially nothing but declarations of what should be expected to happen.
 * An inappropriate name is, I acknowledge, not grounds for deletion (I certainly would not have AfDed on that basis alone), but the fact that even a year cannot be given bears testimony to the scant factual information that the article can give, and serious consideration should be given to renaming the article.
 * I have no intention of getting trapped under a Snowball, but I really see nothing in the article today that justifies its existence other than as a redirect. Kevin McE (talk) 10:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:CRYSTAL has been mentioned a few times in this discussion, and it seems to me that this is a perfect example of an article falling under the first exception: it is "notable and almost certain to take place", and "speculation about it [is] well documented". It even gives 2020 Summer Olympics as an example of an acceptable article. Warofdreams talk 13:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The key difference being that there are salient facts available about the 2020 Olympics, in the form of bids information. At least we know what year that will take place! Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above. Notable, going to happen (and if not, the court case is notable). — Nightstallion 15:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above, and I think this can be snowballed by now. Bondegezou (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep why delete this? Within a few weeks the date of the election will be announced and the article will be undeleted. I think WP:CRYSTAL can be trumped by WP:IGNORE in this instance. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That keep is, to me, precisely the point as to why it is premature. The announcement of the election should be the trigger for article creation.  However, interest here seems to be in earliest possible creation of articles, rather than promptly after information is available, so I withdraw the nom and throw my arms in the air in despair at the attitude.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:22, 17 November 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.