Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline for the Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 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 moot, now that it has been redirected.. kur ykh 04:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for the Labour Party (UK) leadership elections, 2010

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

Of little or no use at the present time. An article on the elections will become necessary; a timeline, however, is not. Ironholds (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is already an article on the elections, the previous elections also had a timeline, no obvious reason why this one should be different. Bevo74 (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Can you demonstrate any need for a timeline at this point? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I created this page is for uniformity with previous elections.Ericl (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 Nothing is known beyond the fact that there will be a contest sometime in the near future. Beyond that, the rest is speculation. There's barely enough solid information to make the main article viable, let alone this one. So, I think this should be merged and re-directed until such time as more information comes out. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is known is the race has been scheduled and is now on. Notice I said the article was a this point a STUB, which means that it's going to grow exponentially over the next few days and weeks. One has to start somewhere, remember...Ericl (talk) 19:39, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The race has been scheduled, and is now on; that justifies an article on the election. What justifies a timeline except "there are other timelines"? Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing really, what we want is uniformity among the articles. If most other elections has a series of subsidiary articles, this one should have it too. If you get rid of it now, then you'll have to make an entirely new article later. better to have the architecture in place at the very beginning.Ericl (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You're pre-supposing that we're going to need a subsidiary article here, which may not be the case. WP:CRYSTAL, remember? Wikipedia does not write in anticipation of uncertain future events. Ironholds (talk) 12:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What future events? Brown has already "resigned" and the race is officially on. It's sort of like what's going on with the US congressional elections of 2010 and 2012. Also, the 2007 Labour timeline, which was, for the most part, unopposed, is there. The event has alreadyBold text started.Ericl (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly premature and right now, is completely redundant to the main article, which is just about justified at this time. The election will not take place for ages, and Brown has made it clear he expects nobody to start announcing their candidacy until the present negotiations about who will form the next govt conclude. MickMacNee (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Unnecessarily duplication, perhaps in the future. Merge any content that is relevant to the 2010 Leadership election articleOff2riorob (talk) 20:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to labour party? :P Ironholds (talk) 20:16, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Labour party or delete it all if there is nothing worthy of merging. I corrected my comment. Off2riorob (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Premature to start this, can be recreated once there actually are any events to record. Fences&Windows 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Unnecessary as a stand alone article and can safely be merged into Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:50, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rather redirect to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010) as premature, the Labour Party rules for electing a leader vary, depending on whether or not the party is in Government or opposition, so the exact details of how this will run are not yet clear. I have added a cited summary of the procedures to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. The Cabinet have agreed that there will be no announcements of candiature from them until a new Government is formed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely unnecessary due to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 - especially since no nominations are going to happen after the Government is formed. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010. Can only duplicate information which would be better placed there. Once there are more events, it might be justifiable to split it off again, but even then I'd rather see it kept in one article unless it becomes too long. Warofdreams talk 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep then why not delete the other timelines from the previous elections? Once the race has started, the architecture should be put in place immediately so we don't have to start up again and again and again.Ericl (talk) 12:48, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As noted above, it's generally inappropriate to compare to other articles in a deletion discussion. Nevertheless, the key difference between this article, and those on past elections, is exactly that - they cover past events. If you're concerned about losing the work you've put in so far, you could copy-and-paste your draft into a subpage of your userpage. Once the events are past, the WP:CRYSTAL policy would no longer apply, and your content could then be either merged into the Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 article, or if warranted, serve as the starting point for a new article. Davnor (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once events are past...well, Brown's resignation announcement and the start of the race IS the Past, and thus it applies.Ericl (talk)

Please stop lawyering on wording. The start of this event is past; unless you think the contest is already ended, the event is not. Demonstrate for me, please, that a timeline is necessary. Not that it is present on other elections, not that it might be necessary in the future; demonstrate that here and now, there is so much information on the election that a timeline is the only way to break it down simply for our readers. Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whilst the article may be a few weeks premature, I can't see that it is worth either deleting it or generating bureaucracy, drama and conflict by talking about deleting it. Even if it is deleted now, it'll need to be created in a matter of weeks, so why waste time getting excited about deleting it now when there are other articles we could all contribute to? ninety:one 19:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessarily a matter of prematurity, it's a matter of necessity. Can we predict that it will be necessary? No. And it isn't our place to. Ironholds (talk) 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note Given the above discussion, I went ahead and merged the useful content into Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 and redirected this there. If people think I was overly bold, feel free to undo the redirect. 86.41.61.203 (talk) 22:08, 13 May 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.