Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 16:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Post-election pendulum for the Australian federal election, 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:OR The Banner talk 13:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 27 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This page will be referred to for the next three years by many readers. Purrum (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for two reasons: 1) on procedural grounds: deletion nominations which don't make any case for deletion beyond vaugely waving at a policy should be rejected out of hand as a waste of everyone's time 2) this isn't OR anyway: electoral pendulums are one of the most common tools used to compare the standing of political parties in Australia, and they're widely complied and published. Nick-D (talk) 01:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there is a value judgement attached to the seats. That is clearly own research as the sources provided do not give any value judgement. The Banner talk 11:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're referring to here. The seats are ordered by the size of the previous election's Two-party-preferred vote margin, which is the standard way of presenting Australian electoral pendulums. The seats with a small margin are more vulnerable to a swing in votes against the party which currently holds it. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the nominator, when saying to a "value judgement" is applied, is referring to the classification of seats as marginal, fairly safe and safe? This classification is based on the one consistently applied by the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC), and is used in National Seat Status reports and other AEC material. This can be referenced for this list here, where the AEC applies the seat status classification to the 2013 election results. (There is a "Very Safe" classification used here which is not in the AEC definition, but if there is concern over this, it is easy to remove.) --Canley (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have removed the "Very Safe" headings as they are not used by the AEC or ABC to classify seats (I have left the coloration though), and referenced the AEC classification. --Canley (talk) 10:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I have a concern about notability. It's sourced to two Australian government sources, which alone aren't enough for WP:GNG. There may be special election-coverage notability separate from GNG. I found only two news sources, but they're not exactly independent, because AFAIK they're government owned: and . Can we expect discussion of this particular topic in further independent RS over the next 3 years? Just my 2c. --Lexein (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The ABC is entirely independent of the government. The Government funds it, but it has complete editorial freedom in exactly the same way that the BBC (it's model) does, and it's often identified as Australia's most trusted news source. This article is part of a series (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pendulums_for_Australian_federal_elections ), and this really is a standard way of presenting the standing of the two main Australian political parties: please see the Mackerras pendulum article (if Mackerras hasn't published his version of this yet, he's presumably only waiting for counting in the final seat to be decided to be completed). Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise for the Australian Electoral Commission—operated and funded by the Australian government, but as a completely independent statutory body. The AEC is the only source of election results to the media and the public as they administer the whole process and conduct the count, so it's silly to dismiss it as a usable factual source that is somehow tainted or biased by its status as a government-commissioned body. In terms of notability, election results, their margins and "safeness" thereof, and yes, electoral pendulums, are widely discussed, published and broadcast in the media for many years. --Canley (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The article might be helped by the addition of the word "independent", for non-Australian readers, so they don't fall into the same trap I did. I've done that. --Lexein (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's a (pre-election) version from the Australian Catholic University: link. --Surturz (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments above. This isn't just something knocked up by some Wikipedia editors as original research or opinion. It is based on solid factual data (official election results and seat classification) from the independent election administration body. Additionally, there should be no question of notability: Fairfax, News Corp and the ABC, as well as commercial television stations have broadcast and published variations on the Mackerras pendulum in their election coverage, throughout the campaign and afterwards (I have linked to some above). --Canley (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep It is sourced directly from AEC figures, and the Mackerras pendulum is a concept invented by a reputable expert over 30 years ago and used religiously in the media (especially in newspaper articles) over the entire time since. Orderinchaos 12:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not sure if they are used overseas, but here in Australia the Mackerras pendulum is widely used often in political news coverage. --Surturz (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The Banner does not know what he's talking about. Timeshift (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - With the Australian Catholic University source mentioned above, I'm quite satisfied with independent coverage. Close as WP:SNOW, someone? --Lexein (talk) 13:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The Banner has not explained how the article is original research. Regardless, I disagree with his/her view, because the article is not original research. Gfcvoice (talk) 11:20, 1 November 2013 (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.