The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
A bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points on a non-notable subject. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It is still under construction, hence the bullet points. I expect it will be too big for a section on the CEA page. I have expanded the article with some background already. This is going to have legislative outcomes, and I expect we will have a referendum on it some time in the next decade if it is not resolved prior to 2019.
Do we have a broader article about Australian Senate elections? Scott Davis has also suggested an alternative place to host it, but the title he suggested seems a bit cumbersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a lot of material. Hopefully that is enough to show it should not be deleted, and also that it is too big for a subsection of the CEA article. I realise it still needs citations, some more detail in certain areas and the text doesn't flow well. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. I am still open to finding it a new home, but I do not prefer any of the alternatives suggested so far.
To whoever makes this decision, please note that there are a lot of vested interests in keeping this quiet. The various media outlets do not want to advertise the fact that their incompetence was so beneficial to the major parties on this issue. The major parties are still benefiting from this and could have a tough 3 years ahead of them if more people find out key facts, such as the 1998 and 2010 bipartisan Senate resolutions that destroy any legitimacy in what they did. I expect this will become a campaign issue in three years time, and we will eventually have a referendum on it. Allowing whoever controls the Senate to pick and choose the method that hands them a few extra seats every time we have a DD election is not a viable outcome. How anyone could describe this as 'non-notable' is ludicrous.
I think that this is the reason for some of the unusual justifications put forward. Drover for example nominated the article for speedy deletion. In justifying this, he acknowledged that it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. He invented a criteria - 'unremarkable' and 'part of a massive piece of legislation'. Are these the invisible sixth pillar of wikipedia? I see the same here: 'non-notable,' 'disproportionate' etc. I think people are not being entirely honest here. If you are not honest with yourself about how you feel, your emotions will control you, and your actions will appear inconsistent and irrational. It is OK to feel annoyed or angry about this, but it will never get resolved if you do not say what is really bothering you. Our democracy is important. You are not powerless to make this right. Oz freediver ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that wikipedia pages were supposed to avoid being 'too specific'. Is there some rule that no-one is telling me about?
I am also not aware of any rules covering people's goals or motivations for contributing here. As far as I know the rules only cover the content submitted. Oz freediver ( talk) 06:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
The result was delete. Sandstein 12:25, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
A bunch of semi-incoherent bullet points on a non-notable subject. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 04:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It is still under construction, hence the bullet points. I expect it will be too big for a section on the CEA page. I have expanded the article with some background already. This is going to have legislative outcomes, and I expect we will have a referendum on it some time in the next decade if it is not resolved prior to 2019.
Do we have a broader article about Australian Senate elections? Scott Davis has also suggested an alternative place to host it, but the title he suggested seems a bit cumbersome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz freediver ( talk • contribs) 08:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I have added a lot of material. Hopefully that is enough to show it should not be deleted, and also that it is too big for a subsection of the CEA article. I realise it still needs citations, some more detail in certain areas and the text doesn't flow well. It won't happen overnight, but it will happen. I am still open to finding it a new home, but I do not prefer any of the alternatives suggested so far.
To whoever makes this decision, please note that there are a lot of vested interests in keeping this quiet. The various media outlets do not want to advertise the fact that their incompetence was so beneficial to the major parties on this issue. The major parties are still benefiting from this and could have a tough 3 years ahead of them if more people find out key facts, such as the 1998 and 2010 bipartisan Senate resolutions that destroy any legitimacy in what they did. I expect this will become a campaign issue in three years time, and we will eventually have a referendum on it. Allowing whoever controls the Senate to pick and choose the method that hands them a few extra seats every time we have a DD election is not a viable outcome. How anyone could describe this as 'non-notable' is ludicrous.
I think that this is the reason for some of the unusual justifications put forward. Drover for example nominated the article for speedy deletion. In justifying this, he acknowledged that it does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. He invented a criteria - 'unremarkable' and 'part of a massive piece of legislation'. Are these the invisible sixth pillar of wikipedia? I see the same here: 'non-notable,' 'disproportionate' etc. I think people are not being entirely honest here. If you are not honest with yourself about how you feel, your emotions will control you, and your actions will appear inconsistent and irrational. It is OK to feel annoyed or angry about this, but it will never get resolved if you do not say what is really bothering you. Our democracy is important. You are not powerless to make this right. Oz freediver ( talk) 22:04, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that wikipedia pages were supposed to avoid being 'too specific'. Is there some rule that no-one is telling me about?
I am also not aware of any rules covering people's goals or motivations for contributing here. As far as I know the rules only cover the content submitted. Oz freediver ( talk) 06:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)