2023 Luton Borough Council election: Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON , but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements.  Onel 5969 TT me 12:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England .  Shellwood ( talk ) 13:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - the information appears to come from the published candidate lists by the UK election authorities, which is about as good as it could be.  I can accept that the individual candidates are not notable, but given that the information about the election has literally been published , I can't really see how as a whole it can be non-notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - for the same reasons I said to keep the equivalent page for Wigan also proposed for deletion by @ Onel5969 ; there is value in letting these pages go live slightly ahead of the elections themselves.  Moreover, letting these pages be deleted loses the work that people have put in in good faith, knowing that every UK local election in recent years has been given a page.  Yes, the policies on general notability and verifiable sources still apply, but a hatnote highlighting the need for more sources or improvements would feel far more proportionate than a deletion or applying redirects (as Onel5969 has done to numerous other equivalent pages for the 2023 UK local elections) given how close we are to the election day now.  Stortford ( talk ) 18:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - for similar reasons you said.  A lot of effort goes into making these and if we are going to start deleting them for the reasons stated in the proposal we are going to have to start deleting thousands of election related articles and possibly even the entire UK Local Elections page.  A request for better sources would be far more reasonable.  Bentley4 ( talk ) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - neither of the keep ! votes is actually based in policy.  Onel 5969 TT me 19:10, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I think that official announcements of candidates in an election are RS that meet the GNG.  What's not policy about that?  JMWt ( talk ) 20:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] What's in-depth or independent about that sourcing?  Onel 5969 TT me 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Its the official list of candidates by the UK elections authorities.  How is that not in depth or independent?  Bentley4 ( talk ) 04:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] It's all the information that it is possible to have about that election - except the results, because it hasn't taken place yet.  Hard, in my opinion, to get more in depth than all the information from the only official source of it.  JMWt ( talk ) 06:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why it's not notable.   Glad you agree there's not enough in-depth coverage at this point in time.   If all the information is not significant coverage, that means it doesn't meet WP:GNG .   And to answer the first question, it's not in-depth because it is not in-depth; and it's not independent, because it's published by a related entity.  Onel 5969 TT me 09:27, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The election authorities are independent of the candidates and parties.  That's how elections tend to work.  If you are saying that we can't take official information from independent election officials as RS then I've a bridge to sell you.  And there are a lot of pages on en.wiki that need removing.  JMWt ( talk ) 11:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The election authorities run the election.   This article is about the election.  Onel 5969 TT me 13:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] You seem to be setting a very high threshold for notability and sourcing here, which I would argue goes beyond the accepted consensus position on what satisfies those policies for UK local elections, with many such pages having been created, reviewed and allowed to stand, with contributions from large numbers of editors.  If you are saying that any such election page only sourced by the official sources is neither notable nor reliable, then that is a much larger debate than we should be having here on one specific council's election page for one specific year.  I believe this page does conform to the policy on notability and sourcing, so should be allowed to stand as it is.  Even if it did not yet reach those thresholds I would still argue that deletion is an over-the-top reaction given the imminence of the election day - you can be certain that within a couple of days of the results being declared they'll be added and sourced here too.  If the page has been deleted in the meantime that's just wasted time for whoever then has to reassemble the base material already here.  Stortford ( talk ) 15:03, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This is always the case with local elections in the UK, and most other pages have been allowed to stand in this manner until the election takes place on 4th May.  Thanks, Wikieditor019 ( talk ).  16:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly not WP:TOOSOON as the election is only days away.  Took only a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage.  [9] [10] [11] [12] Number 5 7 11:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Sourcing found above is sufficient to satisfy GNG requirements.  Rupples ( talk ) 22:30, 4 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The WP:TOOSOON reasoning no longer applies, now that the election has occurred and there are additional sources covering it.  MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:53, 6 May 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep