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. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aberdeen North by-election, 1928[edit]

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

This event is probably not notable. Stefan2 (talk) 23:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close "probably not notable" is not a valid deletion rationale. It either is or isn't notable. I'll think you'll also find that all UK by-elections are notable. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is an election where only about 20,000 people participated notable? --Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - The settled concensus seems to be that all by-elections to the UK Parliament (as a national legislature) are notable. It's not down to numbers. I think you will have to argue why they don't. JASpencer (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator would do well to read WP:BEFORE nominating AfD. Article talkpage reveals it is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom and has been rated Stub-Class. The articles history reveals that it was only created on 29/12/2013. Lugnuts is correct. Graemp (talk) 10:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This by-election was a competitive election where the MP changed. I think that there is an arguable case when one, or particularly both of these conditions don't apply (such as uncontested ministerial by-elections), but this is not the case with this election. On this case it's quite a totemic by-election as the winning candidate, Wedgewood Benn, formerly a Liberal MP first stood as a Labour candidate personifying the interwar exodus of middle class reformers from the declining Liberal Party to the rising Labour Party and also the switch of the Benn politicial dynasty (Tony Benn and Hillary Benn) to Labour. JASpencer (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK#1, no argument for deletion, lack of WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really satisfy speedy keep as there is an argument, although it's validity seems to be disputed. JASpencer (talk) 14:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just how do you define argument? Nominator has yet to decide whether or not the topic is wp:notable. One of the key words in the nutshell at WP:N is "evidence". I see no evidence in the nomination. Then you will also see at WP:N that wp:notability is a test as to whether or not a topic should have a stand alone article. If this test fails, the remedy is a merge if possible. All of this requires analysis and research and we are not yet in the ballpark of a deletion argument. Unscintillating (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be getting a bit worked up about nothing. Option 1 of the Speedy Keep criterion is that "The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted." They did not fail to advance an argument, the argument was that it "probably was non-notable". I think this is a poor argument showing a frivolous attitude to the whole process in order not to justify a point that they knew to be weak, but it is clearly an argument. The use of speedy keeps should be where there is no doubt that the process was started wrongly and this would be the wrong use of that sanction. Any way, there will be no speedy applied here and when this closes it will close as a keep. It's best not to worry about this. JASpencer (talk) 18:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you are finding attitude theories here, but it is not helpful. I can understand that you want to protect your keep !vote, because a speedy keep would be closed NPASR. But that is exactly the point, such a closure would allow the nominator the opportunity to study the issues, review WP:BEFORE, and create a nomination argument; one that would helpfully prepare the community should an actual need for a deletion discussion be found. Regards, Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, all parliamentary elections are notable. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think that this article is clearly notable, I think it would be a good idea if we were to examine this more thoroughly. There were a lot of uncontested by-elections with no election actually being held. Are these inherently notable? This is not the right article to explore this. JASpencer (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2014 (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.