- 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 delete. SNOW Tone 21:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010
- Labour Party (UK) leadership election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article is clear breach of WP:CRYSTAL - it assumes that 1) there will be a General Election in the UK in 2009, 2)that the Labour party will not be re-elected and 3)that this will cause Gordon Brown to resign as leader of the Labour party. Nigel Ish (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There is no justification for this article. It is written in the past tense about a future event. -Rrius (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete - Pure Crystal ball gazing. - Galloglass 06:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Urban XII (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as pure crystal ballery. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 02:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per Wp:CRYSTAL. (Really - talking in the past tense for something that hasn't happened yet?) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I suppose you could have an article on Next Labour Party (UK) leadership election if there's been enough speculation in reliable third-party sources, but an article that starts by assuming a defeat at the next election is not the way to do it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ugh. Crystal-ball gazing of the worst kind. Fences&Windows 19:57, 20 September 2009 (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.