2023 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election: Most likely a case of WP:TOOSOON , but draftifying is no longer an option.  Onel 5969 TT me 20:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] This page, like the various other election pages for 2023 local elections in the UK and previous years, provides information on an election that is quite important.  The election is three weeks away, so I would say it isn't too soon and there is plenty of precedent for creating these types of articles in advance of elections in the UK as well as the US and other countries.  Additionally, the article does cite independent, reliable sources such as Manchester Evening News.  TheSubmarine ( talk ) 07:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:56, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : Normally I'd say WP:TOOSOON on something like this, but this election is a couple of weeks away, the article is sourced to major local press outlets and it will be populated with results soon.  There is plenty of precedent for these local council election articles - see eg.  2022 Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council election .  Flip Format ( talk ) 12:41, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, CycloneYoris talk!  00:59, 23 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - per the two responses above, there is a precedent for such articles and it is cited using reliable sources.  Most local elections are rarely in-depth.  Dank Jae 22:59, 27 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - please don't be over-zealous in pushing for the deletion of these election pages ahead of the event.  Once the candidates are announced, you start getting local media coverage which tells the story of who the contenders / group leaders / policies / coalitions might be, plus it's precisely at this point in the run-up to an election that people pay more attention than normal to local politics.  If the pages are here and ready for potential editors to start documenting the story, that increases the likelihood that the pages will have greater value in future beyond simply recording the bald mathematical outcome.  Stortford ( talk ) 12:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Originally closed as "keep", but reopened for further consideration following a request.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, ✗ plicit 10:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - I'm sorry, but WP:OSE , WP:ILIKEIT , and WP:USEFUL are not policy based arguments.   I am not saying that this article will not be notable at some point, but currently it is not, and should have remained in draftspace until there was enough in-depth sourcing to show that it passes WP:SIGCOV .  Onel 5969 TT me 11:32, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment - you trivialise the arguments in favour of keeping by saying that they are WP:OSE , WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL .  Every local election in the UK has had a page produced for it for some years now.  That is not simply "other stuff exists", but a comprehensive and well-established consensus that such events are of themselves notable.  It you're wanting to have the much wider debate about whether every election should have its own page, that needs to be done in a much wider forum than here, for the significant implications on large numbers of pages that could arise.  I agree the sourcing on these election pages could be improved sometimes, but that should be a note to improve rather than a deletion in the first instance.  I also agree there's a point at which it's too soon to create such an article, but I don't think too soon is a reasonable argument after the candidates are announced, and certainly not just three days from the election as we are now.  I'm glad you acknowledge it may well be notable at some point; I therefore struggle to understand why you think it's a worthwhile use of your or anyone else's time to be continuing to trigger these deletion debates on multiple councils' election pages.  I have yet to see any comment supporting deletion from anyone else on all the equivalent pages you're trying to get deleted.  Stortford ( talk ) 05:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I don't think it's a worthwhile use of my time, I think that when it was moved to draft, it should have remained there until there was enough sourcing to pass notability criteria.   The initial ! votes on this and the other AfDs, if they had been based on policy, should have been Draftify, at best.   But that is the time-waste, the insistence that poorly cited articles, not yet ready, should remain in mainspace regardless of their lack of sourcing.   And no, your argument is the epitome of WP:OSE , just because there are tons of poor articles does not make creating more poor articles okay.   There is no policy that says that these elections are automatically notable, therefore it would be incumbent on those who feel they are to begin an RfC to create an SNG which says they are.   However, I doubt that it would pass.   I would also suggest you change your duplicate keep ! vote to a comment.  Onel 5969 TT me 09:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] I have changed my previous follow-up response from keep to comment, if that is the etiquette; I haven't had much engagement with the deletion process before.  The wording of your initial proposal explicitly says that draftifying is no longer an option, which is perhaps why no-one's suggested it in response.  Stortford ( talk ) 10:48, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Thanks for doing that, yes, in AfD discussions, you may comment as often as you like, but you may only ! vote once.   And regarding my initial Draftify comment, that means that a reviewer no longer has the option to draftify, but the result of a discussion can be to draft.  Onel 5969 TT me 15:27, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Clearly not WP:TOOSOON .  Took a few seconds to find some in-depth coverage [5] [6] [7] Number 5 7 12:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep.  It's not WP:TOOSOON , it's notable and it's in 3 days time.  When there's only one person trying to get 6 different pages for the same reason and there's no other delete votes, what are you trying to gain?  I don't get it.  There's news coverage, and a list of candidates is important information anyway.  On your attempt to remove Luton , you argued that the election authority isn't a proper source for this information - your lack of understanding of UK elections is showing here, as the election authority - in this case, Wigan Metropolitan Borough Council - are the only place that publish a legally-binding list of candidates.  How else do you find out the full list of candidates?  Every UK election page ever has done the same, it's convention.  This is just getting tedious.  Dan pixelflow ( talk ) 10:20, 1 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I agree completely.  One should know a little, at least, about the subject or research it to find out why so many of the same type of article are all having the same made up "issue".  Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The election has occurred and in depth coverage is being added as results solidify.  As with UK local elections, each election is not covered nationally.  However, on Wikipedia, every local UK election has had a article if someone has made it.  Comment It appears you nominate UK local elections for deletion without knowledge of the fact they are not covered nationally, for each individual election.  This means that there will be no BBC/ITV/Sky News article dedicated to a single election.  Possibly in cities but not rural areas.  Thanks, Wikieditor019 (If I do not respond, please visit my talk page) 21:16, 5 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: no consensus