Talk:2009 Higgins by-election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same day as Bradfield?[edit]

The by-election is expected to be held on the same day as the Bradfield by-election

I'm wondering if we can say this. Resigning members don't get to decide the date of the by-elections for the seats they're vacating. True, it would probably be convenient for them to be held on the same say, and that's probably what will happen. But not just because Peter Costello says so. It's a matter for the Speaker's decision. My sense is that he was simply expressing the hope that his departure would cause as little disruption as possible, and one way of mininising it would be to hold the by-election on the same day as Bradfield. That doesn't amount to saying what we're currently saying. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
However, it has been pretty widely accepted in the media that they'll be on the same day, and also among politicians. So we can say quite reasonably that it's "expected" without saying that it's certain. I think what we have now is fine, especially since it's sourced. Frickeg (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I'd be happier if it were sourced from anywhere except Peter Costello's website. It really does look like he's announced when the by-election for his soon-to-be-former seat will be, and he has no power to do that. -- JackofOz (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly O'Dwyer AfD[edit]

Should this page be sent to AfD? I can't see anything noteworthy about her and the only refs are by-election based. Election candidacy in itself is not noteable. Timeshift (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, and it may be best to do so simply to discourage this sort of premature page creation in the future. However, I believe there is a precedent that in this respect pages are kept until after the election, especially in respect of a by-election. (Note Adele Carles and, for a Senator, Scott Ludlam.) The best option may be to move this to userspace in the meantime. Frickeg (talk) 04:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I don't recall any precedent set of a page being kept until after an election. If Carles and Ludlam were noteable then their page should be kept, if not it should have been removed, and if it was kept i doubt it should have been. Timeshift (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been checking up, and in the Ludlam case the proposal to delete was made days before the election, with most people agreeing that it should be kept in such a situation. This is obviously over a month out. With the Carles case, it was moved from userspace to mainspace when she announced she was running for the by-election. Ultimately, though, I have to agree that until she is elected there is no place in the mainspace for such an article. Absolutely send it to AfD or, perhaps, to userspace. Frickeg (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She's a shoo-in, so why get rid of an article that's only going to be recreated? Digestible (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Timeshift (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What crystall balling? The article itself makes no speculation about election. Digestible (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A page shouldn't be kept just because it's likely to exist in the future. When the subject becomes noteable it gets a page, not beforehand based on speculation and crystal balling. Timeshift (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no crystal balling. The article is properly referenced with verifiable citations. Deleting an article that's only going to be recreated is just a waste of time. Digestible (talk) 04:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only references are media outlet online links directly regarding her Liberal candidacy. This is insufficient to establish noteability. Future noteability is just that, and pages per general practice on wikipedia have been removed until such time it's there. Timeshift (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no harm done in leaving the article as is until its subject's notability is established. Which is a near certainty. Digestible (talk) 05:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. Precedent does. Whilst a subject lacks noteability there shall be no article. How about this - should we create an article for all candidates? Why not? We can delete them after. Oh, only for one candidate because we expect them to win? How likely is it? Does a seat have to have a certain margin to have the incumbent party's candidate with a wiki article? You can see the slippery slope here. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're both entirely correct. Timeshift is right when he says keeping her article establishes a precedent we really, really don't want (imagine at election time if we created articles for all "likely to win" candidates; it would be chaos, not to mention a colossal contravention of WP:OR). On the other hand, Digestible is right in that there is a fairly decent stub of an article here, and it would be a pity to redo all the work in the likely event that she's elected. So I think the best solution is to move it to userspace for the time being (doesn't really matter whose), and it can be moved back if she wins. Frickeg (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - obviously keep the contents to put back there if she wins. Timeshift (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD'd. Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Malcolm Mackerras predicts O'Dwyer/Liberal defeat today. Regardless of whether it happens (I think she'll win), it is sweet justification that I was and am correct. O'Dwyer is not noteable for anything except her candidacy, but because it was apparently unanimous agreement at the time that she would be elected, we thought it not appropriate to delete or move to non-article space. If someone is not noteable at the time but presumed to be noteable in the future, they should not have an article. Timeshift (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Great call. Digestible (talk) 09:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is - nobody is noteable until they are noteable. Predicted noteability is not noteability. :) Timeshift (talk) 09:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates[edit]

Here. When I have some time i'll update if others don't first. Timeshift (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Frickeg (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Results table - LDP and ASP coding needs fixing[edit]

Cheers. Timeshift (talk) 11:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Costello[edit]

To RA0808 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Costello

"Costello was widely expected to assume the Liberal leadership after the 2007 election, but the day after the election, in a surprise announcement, he said that he would not seek or accept the leadership or deputy leadership of the Liberal Party."

Therefore this very fact should be included in this article as it was a factor in his decision to retire but if you still want a source on this then I suggest you go find one yourself and stop deleting this very fact from this article.

122.108.156.100 (talk) 03:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 122.108.156.100, as I've explained to you the responsibility is on the person adding information to supply an independent, reliable source (and you can't use Wikipedia as a source per WP:CIRCULAR, which I've done for you. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:49, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higgins by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Higgins by-election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009_Higgins_by-election&oldid=1196544544"