Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 per consensus. PeaceNT 08:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 Victorian election campaign

2006 Victorian election campaign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article is a chronological summary of media reports about the election campaign for the Victorian general election, 2006. Seperate articles deal with encyclopedic content about the candidates and the election itself. I would consider an article on the policies of the parties and candidates of the election to be encyclopedic, but this is just a collection of sourced opinions, media stunts and quotations. Grumpyyoungman01 03:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 04:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a notable topic and is well sourced. John Vandenberg 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I disagree that this is unencyclopedic, and it's clearly notable and verifiable within Wikipedia policies. --Canley 05:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Victorian general election, 2006 article is about the election and this article is about the campaign. I see nothing wrong with that, especially given that it's presented in encyclopedic format (it is not a list of links with brief summaries--the article is a coherent whole). Both topics pass WP:Notability and are encyclopedic. -- Black Falcon 05:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It would detract from Victorian general election, 2006 to have more than a summary of this article included there. The campaign is equally notable to the election itself. Clearly the success of the various parties campaigns are shown in the result of the election.Garrie 06:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Sources, notable, etc. —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the topic per se is notable and the article is well sourced. I haven't found any official WP policy which refers to this type of article, but from a search of "election campaign" this is the first article of its type. This section from 'what WP is not' is the closet I could come to a guideline. I refer to section 7 - plot summaries. The article in question is a massive plot summary, which doesn't actually discuss itself in broader terms. Grumpyyoungman01 08:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I appreciate that, but as this is a new type of article it isn't dealt with anywhere in WP, so I decided to use an argument from analogy. Surely some of the ideas in section 7 are relevant to all plots whether fictional or non-fictional. Grumpyyoungman01 01:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't think the analogy is appropriate, as the whole point of section 7 is that plot summaries complement "real-world context and sourced analysis". This is real-world context and sourced analysis. -- Black Falcon 04:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. No reason for deletion. Dfrg.msc 09:09, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep verifiable, notable and useful article about the election campaign. Sarah 09:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, the article should be cleaned up so that it is a history, or a chronology, of the election, rather than a list of media mentions of the election. But that alone is not sufficient reason to delete. The article might be improved by a rename, though not sure to what. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above. It needs at least a partial rewrite, but is good enough to not warrant a deletion. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 11:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per comments above - the subject is not in violation of any policies although the style and content is in drastic need of revision per WP:SELF and WP:LENGTH IMO. Orderinchaos78 12:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - the topic is encyclopaedic, even if not all the content is. I'd suggest the article be pared down substantially. Joestella 13:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as topic is clearly notable. Possibly needs a bit of a rewrite but that can be further addressed in the talk page. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It meets notability, NPOV and source criteria. I could do with a tidy up though, and the last two weeks of the campaign needs to be added. I think the actual content and style of the campaign are likely to be of considerable historical interest, particularly the last two weeks Peter Campbell 02:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a news service. Compress important information and integrate it into the main article. michael talk 08:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Michael is 100% right that we should improve the article as he describes. But that doesn't mean we should delete it in the meantime. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, loads of precedent for "election campaign" articles like this one.

Lankiveil 12:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Keep Public government elections are notable. Just Heditor review 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Obviously. But are election campaigns notable? That is the point in discussion. Grumpyyoungman01 03:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
All of them. Worst case scenario, merge it into a bigger article. Just Heditor review 17:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The only criterion by which we should be judging events is WP:N. This article clearly passes. To debate whether certain classes of events are notable outside of the guidelines set by WP:N is original research and subjective. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Shorten and merge The campaing is not separate from the elections.Circeus 13:20, 21 February 2007 (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.