Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015


 * 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 and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speculative article for an event that did not eventuate. (Failed PROD) --Surturz (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. The article was originally Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015; this was wrong because the spill did not happen. It was then moved to the current title, which is wrong because the motion happened, failed and is now in the past and no longer "possible". But the controversy and the motion did happen and are well-sourced and notable, and can happily live under a new title that reflects the content. Relentlessly (talk) 23:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That article would fail WP:EVENT. I'm supportive of including the event in Tony Abbott, and even maybe userfying it in case there are ramifications down the road, but at this instant in time the event does not warrant a separate article. Actually, even if there was a subsequent successful spill, this event should be a subsection of that article, not an article in its own right. (If half the cabinet resign as a result of this failed motion I'll revoke the AfD nom though) --Surturz (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fail WP:EVENT: it was a significant event on its own, a historical rarity, and as per the equivalent example of Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013, its failure doesn't render it insignificant. This has received even more attention than that spill (an incredible amount of coverage, really) and appears likely, on all currently available coverage, to carry more historical weight and be the subject of more historical analysis. The mere assertion that an article fails WP:EVENT does not make it so. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see why you argue it is not of historical significance, but I'm not convinced. I don't see why deletion is necessary even so. I'm still in favour of keeping it, but merging it into Tony Abbott with a redirect would be acceptable. Relentlessly (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Consigned to history, this has little ongoing notability and can be covered in Abbott Government or Tony Abbott. WWGB (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article was created too early. Material should be merged into other articles. Mattlore (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename (see indented comments below) Delete . I believe that this article fails WP:EVENT as a standalone event, and is better described as a section in Abbott Government. I would like to note for the benefit of non-Australian Wikipedians that history tells us this is clearly just the beginning, as summarised in this article. So this current event is just a prelude to more significant events that appear likely to occur in the near future. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * doesn't that mean that the article passes WP:EFFECT? Nick-D (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , you've made a very convincing argument below. This event will be seen as significant if it causes Abbott to turn things around, or as a significant step in his downfall. So it will satisy WP:EFFECT either way. I also would like to say you've done a great job on expanding the article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 02:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Should not have been created until it was shown to meet the WP:EVENT requirements. 1.136.97.54 (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Attempted leadership spills targeting sitting Australian Prime Ministers are extremely rare, and are of lasting notability. This is especially the case when the attempt comes fairly close to succeeding, as happened today. They are routinely covered in detail in political histories, memoirs, and the like. The events of today are directly comparable to what the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 article covers (a leadership contest with no challenger), and the Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 1991 article is also relevant given the widespread commentary that it's inflicted a fatal wound on PM Abbott. Given that the events of today have been the dominant story in the Australian media for the last week, have been covered in detail in the international media (examples:, , , , , , ) have been widely reported as likely to lead to future political dramas by prominent Australian journalists (examples: , , , (paywalled), ) and, based on past events, will be the subject of lasting coverage and analysis by political scientists and journalists, WP:EVENT is easily met. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are not comparing like for like, in both examples you list (Australian Labor Party leadership spill, March 2013 and Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 1991) there existed either a vacancy in leadership or a vote on the actual leadership, in this case it was a vote to see if there should be a vote on the leadership. If there had been a resultant leadership vote then it would have warranted a stand-alone article but this just warrants a mention in Abbots page. 1.136.97.54 (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that the ALP and Liberal Parties have different processes and conventions for handling leadership matters, that's not the case. The ALP doesn't vote on whether to spill, it just goes straight for it as happened in March 2013. Nick-D (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the same situation as the ALP March 2013 spill, except that it's a different party with a slightly different process. They're both accordingly deserving of articles for obvious reasons. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 07:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 147.194.16.123 (talk) 05:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Nick-D's remarks. Also agree with others that the article needs renaming. I agree with Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. Timeshift (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment As further evidence that WP:EVENT is met, the vote has lead to non-trivial changes to Australian Government policies, and Abbott has made commitments to change the way he and his office operate: Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:EVENT. Should see if some content can be salvaged for other articles however. Jmount (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename. Extremely significant political event, a rarity in Australian political history, massive, detailed and widespread coverage in reliable sources, ongoing political ramifications and a fundamental part of the history of this government. The deletion arguments are weak and just haphazarly refer to a policy that doesn't support the deletion of this article. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 06:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep an internationally notable event in Australian politicsUK, USA, Gnangarra 07:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – per Nick-D's rationale. Liberal / Labor parties have differing processes and conventions handling leadership matters – this is just as significant as any previous leadership spill. The vote has resulted in Abbott winning by a slight majority, and give it time before another spill is motioned. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 08:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * *Keep and Rename --> Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. While it did not immediately meet its proponents' aims, many commentators on both pro- and anti- sides of the argument now concede it has inflicted a level of damage that will probably prove terminal.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 13:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. It is a significant and notable event, which was covered extensively in Australian media and reported by international media, and was a real threat of effectively ending a Prime Ministership and changing the leader of the country. It doesn't matter that the motion failed, it was a serious and significant development in Australian politics, can be thoroughally referenced, and follows on from several recent leadership spills in Australia recently. Outcomes of the spill motion, such as Abbott's promises to consult more and renegotiations to the Australian Submarine Corporation deal, are additionally notable. Whats new? (talk) 04:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per comments by others. This was clearly a large political event in Australia, with a large build up and potentially ongoing consequences. I have no view one way or the other on the name. ColonialGrid (talk) 04:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, though I'd like to throw in an idea; maybe we can rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership crisis, 2015 instead? PhilipTerryGraham ⡭ ₪ ·o' ⍦ ࿂ 02:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit more vague and less-defined: this article can focus on the build-up to, events of and aftermath of events on a specific day, whereas that article would be more likely (in my opinion) to turn into sprawling and ill-defined coverage of federal Liberal leadership tensions this year. I'm not ardently opposed to it if there is a consensus otherwise, just think it's the second-best option. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It is questionable if there was a "crisis", they didn't even decide to test the leadership with a spill. It probably only warrants some description in Abbott Government. Screech1616 (talk) 10:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment IMO, it does not meet wp:event as the precedent of a leadership spill motion was set prior, nor does the effect likely seem to be one of ongoing prominence. Media reported the damage to be terminal prior to the spill motion, so I do not think it meets the criteria through that argument. The fact that it was widely covered is because it was wp:recentism and because coverage about politics is routine, so I don't consider those to be the best arguments for keeping it either.
 * Having said that, it appears that there is an article for every leadership spill motion in the both parties, so in light of that I think it should probably stay for the sake of consistency (even though I disagree with several of the spill motions having their own article) Hollth (talk) 05:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

KEEP: It is an important matter of record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jollytinker (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Keep. This will certainly be discussed for years to come, regardless of what happens to Abbott. As pointed out above, things like this are unusual and significant. I notice that now Philip Ruddock is a casualty from the fallout. I also support the rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015, although there may well be another spill motion before the year is out. StAnselm (talk) 20:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick-D's incontrovertible rationale. I also agree that Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 is the best possible title for the article. If there's another spill motion or leadership contest before the year is out, we can figure out what to do then. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments above (esp Nick-D), and because this is an ongoing situation that incorporates many separate incidents (i.e. not WP:EVENT). It's of paramount importance to most Australians, and will not be forgotten any time soon. Furthermore, it is developing and will certainly become more rather than less notable until the motion is successful, or until the next election. -- samj in out 00:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As per WWGB. We shouldn't have an article for a failed vote to attempt a spill.  It should mentioned on the Abbott Government and party pages only. - Shiftchange (talk) 03:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep For all of reasons outlined above. My suggestion to article name is Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2015 (motion defeated) --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC) This way it fits neatly with sister articles: Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2007, Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2008 & Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill, 2009 --Mrodowicz (talk) 09:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015. The article isn't speculative, the event happened and was highly notable, it just wasn't a spill as the title suggests. Further, we shouldn't presume that the event will not have relevance in the future as some commenters have suggested, we have to deal in the facts as we know them now. &lt;Karlww(contribs&#124;talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename, as suggested above. Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 would be my preferred title, given that it didn't actually come to a spill in a technical sense.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC).

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mr. Guye (talk) 19:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't see how 18 keeps/renames and 5 deletes makes it worthy of a relist...? I've seen articles kept on a much closer margin than this. And in tight situations the default decision has been keep due to no consensus to delete article. I notice on your userpage it says you're a deletionist, could this have had a thought in to your decision? If you're looking for a snowball keep/delete, it's not going to happen. Timeshift (talk) 22:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we add my name to those confused as to why this required a relist? There are plenty of arguments to work with above, and no indication that kicking the can down the road is going to result in a consensus materialising.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Incredible relist, especially by a non-admin. User:Mr. Guye, please explain your reasons for relisting. StAnselm (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 as suggested by others. The topic of Abbott's leadership was not "resolved" and has remained in the media since the meeting last week - it is part of an ongoing issue.  -- Chuq (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015 - subject of intense media speculation and significant development in Australian politics. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename to Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill motion, 2015, per my previous rationale above. Whats new? (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposer commment AFAIK you should not vote a second time in a relist, Whats new?. I agree with others, I think the relist is unnecessary, and would be happy for an admin to make a determination and close. --Surturz (talk) 06:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment, given the fact this article is getting a fair bit of attention (presumably due to this being a running issue in Australian politics), and given the surprising relist above, I have raised this at Administrators%27_noticeboard for review by an uninvolved editor, to see if we can at least get that tag off of the article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC).
 * Delete, include as part of Abbott Government. Screech1616 (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2015 (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.