Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Division of Bean

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by RoySmith (talk | contribs) at 23:16, 29 April 2018 (→Division of Bean: Closed as Draftify all (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
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 Draftify all. There's reasonably good agreement here that this is WP:TOOSOON. A straight reading of the consensus would be to delete these, but the suggestion to draftify just makes too much sense to ignore. It should satisfy the too-sooners, while at the same time preserving the existing work and allowing people to continue to ignore WP:NOTNEWS as they are wont to do anyway. At the appropriate time, the articles can be moved back into mainspace, or renamed should events unfold in that direction. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Division of Bean

[edit]
Division of Bean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

These pages have been created in good faith, but too soon. The redistributions in the ACT and Victoria are still at the draft stage, and these new divisions are merely proposals which may or may not be confirmed when the redistributions are finalised in July. The pages violate WP:CRYSTAL. Frickeg (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2018 (UTC) Also nominating:[reply]

Division of Monash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Division of Nicholls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Frickeg (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As a further point here, if any of these names do not eventuate, they should definitely, unequivocally not be redirects to the final versions. These names would never have existed, and in any event may later be used for totally unrelated divisions. See below for how likely changes are (very, is the answer). Frickeg (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I agree that these articles were started prematurely, but it's very rare for the electorates formally proposed by the AEC to not eventuate. I think that all that usually changes is their boundaries and very occasionally their names. As such, I don't see any point in deleting the articles, as they'd need to be recreated within a few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 05:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, a few months minimum, not a few weeks. Currently the AEC is projecting 13 July (three months away) for a final determination. Secondly, I have to dispute the idea that it's rare for electorates proposed to not eventuate. Dramatic changes happen fairly regularly between the initial proposal and the final determination, especially with division names. The obvious example is Flynn in 2007, which was originally supposed to be named Wright before many objections pointed out that that might lead to unlooked-for associations with Keith Wright; the current Wright is completely unrelated. More dramatically, the 2010 WA redistribution saw a huge change: with the realignment of remote divisions, originally Kalgoorlie was meant to be the southern one and O'Connor the northern one, but in the final decision O'Connor became the southern one and the northern one became Durack. The 2010 NSW redistribution originally proposed re-naming Lowe as McMahon and retiring the name of Reid altogether; the final decision retained Reid for Reid-Lowe and renamed Prospect instead. The 2013 Victorian redistribution was essentially completely redone - the original proposed the abolition of Murray and the creation of a new seat of Burke in outer Melbourne, which was completely junked in the final determination. The fact is, if you exclude simple boundary-tinkering redistributions (i.e. Tasmania and NT), a majority of the last decade's redistributions have seen dramatic changes between the first draft and the final determination, especially in division names. Frickeg (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
and so i reckon news, crystal, soon do not apply. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"A new seat" and "this specific seat" are not the same thing. And you haven't commented at all on the Victorian ones, which are both renamings. Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, i cant go back in time to create an article called "Third electorate in the ACT" then rename it to "Division of Bean", as for commenting on the Victorian ones, editors do not need to comment on every article of a bundled afd, indeed i could suggest that this afd be closed and recreated separating bean from the others as the majority of this discussion appears to have concentrated on bean only, but i wont. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:07, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or draftify, without prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the new electoral districts are actually finalized. For all the differences between the Australian political system and the one here in Canada, there isn't a significant difference in the way electoral districts get redistributed: the electoral commissions propose new districts, which then get discussed and debated and reviewed, and possibly revised to something significantly different, before they actually become real electoral districts. So we do not keep articles about proposed electoral districts in any country: we start the article only when the process is finished and the new electoral districts are confirmed. Bearcat (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, AAAARRRRGGGHHHH!!! the AEC Commissioner determined on 31 August 2017 that the ACT will have an extra seat, the calculation is as follows: population quota for a house of representative seat is 164,788.61806, total population for determination purposes of the ACT at date of calculation was 419,256, divide this by the pop quota equals 2.54420 therefore the AECC has determined that the ACT will have 3 house of reps seats, it is all set out in the AEC media release here, this will occur, it will not change, boundaries and names may be different, but will not change the fact of a third seat for the ACT. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "a new seat" and "this specific seat" are not the same thing. Just because we know that something will happen, in some form or another, is no reason to have an article about one of any number of possibilities before we know what that form will be. Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is exactly the point. When the third ACT seat is finalised, an article should certainly be created. The 'Division of Bean' is nothing more than a proposal subject to numerous minor, moderate and major change. There is no need to rush to be first to create an article for the third seat. It is simply too soon. -- Whats new?(talk) 00:16, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Frickeg and Whats new? are correct about this. Sure, it's been determined that the ACT will get a new seat in the redistribution — nobody's denied that. But that new seat's name and boundaries may not line up with this proposal, but may still end up being different from the present draft of the redistribution process — and that's why we wait until the new seats are finalized before we start articles about the confirmed new seats. Nobody's saying there aren't going to be any new seats — but we do not know what the new seats are going to be named or what their boundaries are yet, because the boundaries and names of new seats can change between the preliminary report and the actual final redistribution. For an example from the most recent Canadian redistribution, I do not now live in the same electoral district I would have been living in if the original redistribution proposal had passed — and it's not that I've moved, because I haven't, but that the names and boundaries of the new electoral districts got adjusted between the initial proposal and the final result. So we didn't start new articles about the initial new district proposals — we waited until the representation order was passed into law, and then started new articles about the official new districts that had been legislated as happing for certain. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how else to put this. Those are all things that will happen, whereas these seats might happen. There is no question that there will be a 2026 Winter Olympics, but there is a question about whether there will be a "Division of Bean", "Division of Monash" or "Division of Nicholls". It's like how we have an article on the next Australian federal election (because we know it will happen), but not an article on the Australian federal election, 2019 (because there might not be one then).
For what it's worth, I doubt anyone would object to an article about the redistribution itself (since that will happen) including coverage of this proposal, and I've long wondered how best to structure articles about redistributions (should each state/territory get their own or should we lump them all together for the duration of each parliament?). I would love to discuss with you and others ideas on how to deal with this (in addition to the next election page, that would be the appropriate place for this information), but that's a separate discussion. Frickeg (talk) 05:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
but there are no details about the events, who is actually going to be playing etc, with this article, whats going to happen when its gone and the numerous interested wpreaders (well maybe half a dozen:)) want to know about this third ACT seat?, heck, who am i kidding? sports events, even if they are 10+ years in the future compared to something political? what was i thinking? ps. please see my final comment at the end of this afd:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 16:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, you don't seem to understand what I and others have said. The issue supporters of this AfD have is about the TOOSOON aspect. No one is denying there will be new divisions, but creating an article on a proposal about what the new division may be named, its boundaries, etc. is not appropriate. The article fails both WP:N and WP:V until final decisions are announced by the AEC -- Whats new?(talk) 06:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, i accept the white fluffy stuff that is falling all around here but still reckon article should be kept with possibly a rename to something like "Third seat/electorate? for the ACT" as there is plenty of WP:RS sources about it as i listed above, i would have carried out the rename but wasn't sure that it is allowed while an afd is going on, that said, i would like to send out a big THANKYOU to all the above editors that have shown such patience and civility in the face of my obsessiveness with this subject. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Coolabahapple's citations show that the press is buzzing. OK WP:NOTNEWS but those are reliable sources. That is what we're here for: readers might be looking for objective, sourced, articles on these topics - either now, or in the future.
If the divisions get renamed, or if something else happens, so be it. That's what page moves, renames, merges, and redirects from historical names are for. But, these topics are backed up by hard WP:RS evidence (and I can't say that of every WP article I've ever looked at). Narky Blert (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something has reliable sources does not make the topic notable. There are other considerations. I sincerely doubt anyone is seeking information on a 'possible electorate that might happen' -- Whats new?(talk) 06:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the intent here, I don't think this solution works entirely because all of it would still need deletion in the event these divisions fail to materialise. Frickeg (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. If it fails to materialize, then we add that info with a follow-up source, but the fact that it was planned - at one point in time - will still be true. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may have been true, but that doesn't make it notable. A planned division never implemented is not notable -- Whats new?(talk) 23:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely why my solution works so well. The standards for including information in an article are lower than those for having a dedicated article - only one source is required. The redirect preserves the history one way or another. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 23:45, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear - if these divisions do not come to pass, they should not be included on the main divisions page. They could be mentioned briefly on the next election page or in more detail on a dedicated redistribution page (which, as I said above, I'd be more than happy to look at a format for), but in neither case would a redirect be appropriate. Frickeg (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I already put this info into the planned divisions section, all we're talking about now is whether to have a redirect from here to there or not. If we're only talking two months or so before this is resolved, it probably doesn't really matter one way or the other, but IMHO a redirect seems the best way to preserve this properly sourced content while not running afoul of WP:TOOSOON. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 05:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information doesn't need to be preserved if it isn't notable. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:34, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
What a conundrum. Do we delete and recreate in a couple of weeks? Can we relist for two more weeks? Sometimes future events are notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. Is this notable? It is a mandate that the division be made because by law the number of divisions "must" equal representation. This is discussed in the AEC report under Legislative requirements. As far as I can see (looked breifly because this is basically an expired timeline discussion) there are currently three representatives so must be three divisions. If I am right on this then the only "proposal" is concerning the name, which has not been contested so is more than likely to be the name, and the tweeking of any contested areas to be included in the division. Nothing else is actually open for debate. The "division" will occur and the name, again, as for as I can see, will for more than likely be "Bean". Is this "breaking news"? Not really since it has been ongoing since 2017. Is it WP:Too soon? Not according to The Sidney Morning Herald that states the division will be called "Bean" and includes mapping and decription of the area.
This is not actually a "future" event, and certainly notable to the people of Australia and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) where 20% of the population will be in new areas according to ABC news.
There is an abundance of reliable sources that the division is a given and the name technically (I assume) open to challenge but uncontested. The results will be more "legal" after the May 4, 2018 final comment date and the May 18, 2018 determination date.
I guess since it is a politial and future "historical event" if this is decided to be deleted just userfy it in a draft to me. It will just have to be recreated in less than two weeks when it will be considered "official". Otr500 (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a given that there will be a new division. It is not yet a given that the division will have this name, or these boundaries. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You've misunderstood quite a lot there - as the indicative timetable makes clear, the final determination will occur not before 13 July. After the objections close on 4 May, there is a further comments-on-objections period that closes on 21 May, then the Commission meets again to determine if the objections have any merit and whether to make changes to the boundaries. If they decide to make further changes (which, as I've shown above, is not uncommon), there is then a further objection period that would push that July date back again.
There are also not "currently" three representatives; there are only two. Three must be elected at the next election due to population changes indicated by the most recent census, but we do not know the form that new seat will take. In fact, should the election be called before the final determination date (extremely unlikely, but not impossible), then this whole redistribution would be scrapped and a makeshift third seat created out of Fenner.
The SMH makes it clear in the first sentence that these are merely "proposed" boundaries, and you cannot say the name is "uncontested" because the objections period hasn't even closed yet so we don't know if any have been submitted (but they will have been - they always are). There has certainly been chatter on Twitter and elsewhere about the name Bean as (a) yet another white male among many many white men with divisions named after him, and (b) suggestions of anti-Semitism particularly in relation to Sir John Monash. Frickeg (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2018 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Division_of_Bean&oldid=838891139"