Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victorian state election campaign, 2006


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Victorian state election campaign, 2006

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The article in question is utterly unsalvageable. It attempts to microscopically dissect a state election campaign in a fashion which violates WP:NOTNEWS, and advocates strongly and persistently against the party of government (Labor) in an apparent breach of WP:SOAP. The mass of sections reads like a laundry list, and the great majority of the article relates to incidents which had no notability or significant coverage in reliable sources - indeed, some of it is primary sourced to party websites, and I haven't even checked that all of the links even work. I had considered rewriting the article entirely based on reliable sources such as Australian Journal of Politics and History, archived copies of the Financial Review and etc, but on reflection, the journal says "The new year in Victorian politics got off to a slow start" (52:4 p650), and invests a grand total of three (3) pages on the election campaign in two sections: "Prelude to the Poll: the Policy Debate" (53:2, p.295-6) and "The Election Campaign" (p.296-297) are all there is, making me think this article is entirely unnecessary - it's no more notable than any other election campaign. Although now quite dated, a similar article for SA was deleted in April 2007. Orderinchaos 00:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Orderinchaos 00:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: it's original research. Barrylb (talk) 01:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: References are provided and the article documents events during the campaign which are of historical interest. Note that the page was previously nominated for deletion on February 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was strongly in favour of Keep. Peter Campbell 04:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Even I voted for it back then - you can see my vote there, was basically an "it's harmless" - but standards were lower back then, and the experience of the SA and WA campaign pages a couple of months later was enough to persuade me to change my mind. Like I said, opinion pieces and primary sources are not "references". Orderinchaos 04:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Given that Victorian state election, 2006 includes information about the campaign in a neutral form, there's no need for this opinionated version (e.g. "the phoney campaign") to be retained. It's obvious that the authors were keeping track of the daily news as the campaign moved along and approached the election day, with a running commentary, and nobody interfered with the exercise as it progressed.  However, the historical record of the election is and has been the main article.  For all the keep !votes and hopes for "salvage", I'm still wondering, why not put relevant facts in that article?  Mandsford 18:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. After quite a bit of agonising over this one, it's come down to this. I think to say that the article needs "a bit" of work is a bit of an understatement; it was clear after reading what's under just a few of those interminable subheadings (and I did read the whole thing) that for this article to be even close to acceptable it needs a complete rewrite. The fact that well over half of the article doesn't even cover the formal campaign is an even more serious problem. Large parts of the article are well out-of-date, and the whole thing is afflicted with terrible POV. As such, I have to agree with Orderinchaos that this is unsalvageable and should go. Frickeg (talk) 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against a future recreation. Sometimes, when an article needs to be completely rewritten, it is appropriate to delete an article on an otherwise notable topic. This is one of those cases. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:38, 30 July 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.