Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/55th United Kingdom general 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

55th United Kingdom general election

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete until the completion of the ongoing election as little useful information can be added until then. Philip Stevens (talk) 15:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I forget the right terminology - I started to say hold, or whatever we call it. It's a bit premature to have an article on the subject, when the date's not set. Holding off until the date is set might make sense. OTOH, this is most positively certainly a notable topic. And we do know that the election has to be held soon. So... Ja, it's a bit early, but not much, so keep it until it's appropriate. David V Houston (talk) 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the fact that this is the NEXT election after the current one. Due to the Parliamentary system, the election in this article could happen as early as this fall, if the government falls. Definitely WP:CRYSTAL. !vote changed to delete. David V Houston (talk) 21:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL Jonathan McLeod (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'I assume you mean point 1 ("1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"). If so, it is clear that this event is definitely notable and certain to take place. The point highlights that the 2020 Summer Olympics is appropriate. This election could even happen in 2010 if a hung parliament occurs. There's no way an absolute date can be given just as no date was known for the 2010 election until 2 weeks ago. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a page on the 2010 election until the beginning of April.WikiWebbie (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I obviously have a personal interest here as the creator of the article. Some people have since pointed out that it would be better to create the article on May 7th and maybe they are correct. May 7th is only two weeks and a bit away, so it seems a bit pointless having a two-week debate on it only to restore it just a few days later. We're all agreed that it is an article that will need to be written at some point. Sporting events are normally listed well in advance - often before the dates or hosts are known. I've applied the same principle here. Since we know the date for the 2010 election, we can give a final date for the election. The date for the 2010 election was completely unknown until two weeks ago. WikiWebbie (talk) 18:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The proper article is here - United Kingdom general election, 2010. Szzuk (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' You're wrong! This is the one after that. Your point is invalidated.WikiWebbie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL and fatal WP:OR. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

' As explained above, it is not WP:CRYSTAL as it meets the requirements. It is not WP:OR at all. Your nearly as bad as these politicians - making things up just to get your way. WikiWebbie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if not already, this page will be valid in 17 days time. What is the point in deleting it before then? Also, if there is a hung parliament, this election is likely to take place in a few months time. Hera1187 (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little silly to have this in mainspace, I think. Move it to a draft page (a subpage of the relevant project?) for now and drop it back into mainspace on May 7 as Next United Kingdom general election - we had a long argument last time about the best title and the logic should still hold, I think. Either way, "55th ..." is probably undesirable. Shimgray | talk | 21:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - CRYSTAL. The article will need to exist eventually, but will in the interim be called Next United Kingdom general election, a title taken at present by a redirect. Wereon (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If the United States can have articles about the 2016 Senate elections, why is this even being considered for deletion? If a "Delete" consensus emerges, then just copy the article into a subpage until such a time as the article is needed. ~BLM (talk) 23:38, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm not too bothered about the outcome of this one as there will be a page to this effect in three weeks two days no matter what. However, this page doesn't really say anything about the election that isn't either generalised information that applies to all elections, or vague speculation. If the page stays, don't be disappointed if the vast majority of content goes. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete the entire article while we wait for the title "Next United Kingdom general election" to become available. Although nations with parliamentary systems have to wait for an election to be called, there is a certainty that the British election would take place no later than five years after the most recently scheduled general election. Mandsford (talk) 14:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cautious Keep I'm not sure that this article should have been created quite as early as this, and I don't like the title, looks like OR. However something like this is going to be created in another couple of weeks, and there has been a significant amount of work done, so we should let it through on the nod. We may have to consider putting a block on the creation of articles before some people think it is appropriate, as happened with the next US presidential election 2 years ago. When does "Next UK general election apply to this election? When the polls close? PatGallacher (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information which is currently on this page is the same kind of information which was on this page a year or two ago. It's true that that information doesn't extend much beyond what the last possible date is, but the point still stands; it's not very different from what we've had before, and that was allowed to stand. Also, now we have that information about the date, I would say that that is substantial enough for the article to exist. I would say that it is the equivalent of us knowing the venue of a future sports tournament to be held after another edition which hasn't happened yet (for example, the 2014 FIFA World Cup). If we didn't have that information about the date, then I suppose that I would not be so keen on keeping the article. Also, I think that it would very much be a waste of time to delete this article now. If it were to be deleted, then it would be just a matter of days before it was created again. That would mean that the whole article would need to be built up again from scratch, even though there was one in existence just a few days beforehand (hence my point about deleting being a waste of time). What we have now is a start, and after a few days it should be able to be expanded a bit. What's more is that this is inevitably something which people are going to be interested in at this time, and I think that it'd be a bit wrong to deny some curious people some information that they're looking for (even if it's just that date). I think we need some common sense. Redv Blue 02:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes Wikipedia:Verifiability, bit dubious on Wikipedia:Notability guideline but there seems little doubt that if it is deleted then it will simply have to be recreated again in a couple of weeks. Jll (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily Move to Sandbox: The article will be useful on May 7th (especially in the event of a hung parliament), however it is not necessary until then.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Once this election is called, we can create an aritcle on it. Thus far it can only say that there will be another election between in the next five years, which simply restating the rules of election. Furthermore, the numbering is pretty much arbitrary. Str1977 ^(talk) 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'It's completely ridiculous to not create the article until it is called. Otherwise the current election's page would not have been created until three weeks ago. This page contains information that is useful to people and since Wikipedia is designed to further knowledge it should stay. WikiWebbie (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nothing can be said about this election other than that it will happen in a certain period of time. See WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we do delete this article, it is now 8 days and a few hours until we are likely to re-create it, so I think we can let it through on the nod. PatGallacher (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy until, as people claim above, in ~8 days it will be possible to say something encyclopedic about this topic. Userfying should satisfy all participants in this AfD. Abductive (reasoning) 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.