Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2007

This breaks crystal ball in that "proposed" "predicted" "could" and "maybe" all appear throughout the article. There is no leadership election planned, there is no resignation proposed, there is nothing but continued media predictions and crystal balling. This article breaks the policy on events which have not been officially timetabled to occur doktorb _words^deeds 13:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Thε Halo ^Θ 13:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, it is extremely relevant and although some of the dates on the page are in question the page itself is not. There is going to be a leadership election within the next year and there is already a declared candidate. Philip Stevens 14:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete due to crystalballism. There's many a slip betwixt cup and lip... the Leadership Election in 2007 is expected, but not guaranteed to happen. And encyclopedias should be recording the past and present not anticipating the future. Bwithh 14:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Last week, I would have gone delete here, but it seems almost certain that such an event will take place in '07. The article is well-sourced and avoids speculation. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 14:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If the election takes place this year, a simple page move would do the trick. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 19:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Although no such event has been confirmed, this article is well referenced and is a good indicator, sourced from various places, of potential candidates, etc. Today's news shows that although no date is confirmed for a contest - one will happen, and this article can be updated as such as and when. 15:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, although there is allot of speculation in this page, the election is as close to certain to happen as possible and if it shouldn't exist than neither should pages like United States presidential election, 2008 and Next United Kingdom general election. Hera1187 15:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - But the latter two you quote are scheduled event which are certain to occur. This event is speculated. doktorb _words^deeds 15:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Like Next United Kingdom general election, the only thing that's speculated is the dates. The only way that there won't be a contest is if no one stands against the only declared candidate, John McDonnell. How likely is that? Hera1187 15:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Actually John McDonnel would need 44 MPs, although he - or someone other than Brown - will get it. JASpencer 18:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Strong and speedy Keep This is one of the most important news stories in the UK at the moment. It is now a FACT that this contest will take place, and it WILL take place within the next year. Seivad 16:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment This contest was always going to take place at some point in the future. That was never an issue. The problem is, this article assumes the leadership contest will take place in 2007. Tony Blair has said the he will step down in the next 12 months. Now, he could either a) Step down tomorrow. This would mean that the leadership election would take place in 2006, or b) decide to continue on as PM. He has said he will only resign if the timing is right for the country. Therefore, he still could remain Labour party leader after 2007. And that is the problem with looking into the crystal ball. If the page could be moved to a name like, Upcoming Labour Party (UK) leadership election, a lot of problems with crystal balling would be solved. Thε Halo ^Θ 17:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment: In which case we should be looking at where (or if) to move the page, not whether to delete it. Js farrar 23:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

• KeepAs Hera1187 pointed out, there must be a contest, and if the problem is with the name of the article speculating on dates, (which is likely to be accurate speculation anyway) that doesn't constitute a case for deletion.Greg Stevens 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Hera1187. --Pinkkeith 18:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't think there's anything gained by moving it to another name. If the date changes, then the article can change to reflect that. The alternative is, what, a growing section within the already-long Tony Blair? Also, I assume that the nomination was for crystall ball violations rather than "complete bollocks". Crystall ball says "If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented", and that's certainly easily met. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There will be a leadership election, it's just a question of whether it's in 2006 or 2007. If he resigns in the next two months change the title. JASpencer 18:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment Here we go "question" "whether" "if".... this is speculation. It is only "well documented" because it is currently a media led story - the actual contest has not been called. The actual event has not been started. There is just speculation - and that breaks current policy. doktorb _words^deeds 19:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• It's only going to get more relevent at the Labour party conference and as Blair's deadline approaches. Philip Stevens 19:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and the article will contain too much crystal-ballism until we have a set date and more than one announced candidate. I also point to the entry for 26 July 2007 under 'future milestones as to why. ([1]) - "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister". Currently, the article is only feasible for such displays of crystal-ballism. Delete and restart closer to the time, when we, at the very minimum, have a set date. Railwayman 19:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - sourced, encyclopaedic. People should read Wikipedia, she ain't a crystal ball before invoking it. WilyD 20:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Indeed. In particular, it states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", and both of these criteria are clearly met. It also says "Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, preassigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics", and it is not such a thing. Finally it states "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and...inappropriate", but it does not present those things: it merely states the dates which have either been put forward or been speculated about by politicians or the media; there is no original research. OK, saying "The last day of Tony Blair as Prime Minister" doesn't conform to the conditions, but that's just an anomolous statement which needs rewording, and is unrepresentative of the rest of the artcle, so certainly isn't cause for its deletion.Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Sure, individual sentences can be excised, but that's not really an issue for AfD. Otherwise, WP:NOT goes out of it's way to say Events widely anticipated and at least somewhat planned for are not violations of Crystal Ball. Significant press coverage of upcoming leadership convention means a Wiki article is appropriate. We even have a template for this kind of article, for instance at the top of Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, another planned leadership convention. WilyD 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:NOT. The leadership election is almost a certainty to take place,even if Blair hands the leadership on a plate to Brown, the latter will still seek ratification. WP:NOT cites that the 2008 U.S. presidential election, would be an appropriate subject. Ohconfucius 08:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep per Greg Stevens 20:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC). Blair has said that he will leave office before the 2007 Labour Party Conference, which makes it likely with a probability approaching 1 that there will be a 2007 Labour Party leadership election. Js farrar 12:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep per Wikipedia:Snowball clause. 13:13, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that's not a criterion for a speedy keep. WilyD 14:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, it does reference the deletion policy which states that "if a clear consensus for non-deletion is quickly reached, discussion may be closed before the end of the typical period". Now, I'm not sure whether or not this applies to this case, but it seems clear to me which way consensus on this discussion is going to fall. There'salso only been one "delete" vote since Blair's speech yesterday. Js farrar 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - one of the most ludicrous deletion requests I've seen. Clearly an important future event; just needs to avoid the usual unsourced speculation. --EddieBernard 17:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Commment' And with all due respect, that sounds like an uncivil personal insult against me doktorb _words^deeds 07:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment I don't think that the user is making a personal attack, but making a comment on this RfA, just as they would whoever created it. I think you need to remember WP:AGF. Thanks, Seivad 08:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Indeed. I have no opinion on Doktorb; I just think this is a rather bizarre deletion request for all the reasons many others have already expressed. --EddieBernard 07:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Relavent and coming up very soon.
• Keep, not crystal ball and sources are verifiable, notable future event and Blair has stated that he is going to resign in May next year. The election is very likely not definitely going to be held, please read WP:NOT before saying anything about crystallbalism. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 16:04, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, Wikipedia has every right to create articles on future events that have been predicted, announced, mandated, or speculated on. See End of the World, Second Coming, and United States Presidential Election, 2008. Thesocialistesq 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep As long as the article keeps to the current facts, it is not a crystal ball. Although the contest hasn't started yet, certain preparatory events have happended already - such as the media speculation, Tony Blair announcements etc. We can talk about actual facts which are worthwhile as the foundation of an eventual article that covers the entire process. Not being a crystal ball does not mean not covering events that haven't finished yet. AndrewRT - Talk 15:35, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Greg Stevens above. --Satori Son 13:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep, possibly rename. It's a fact that there will be one, and the only problem with this article is that it presumes that it can't happen in 2006 already. —Nightstallion (?) 12:53, 12 September 2006 (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.