Talk:Next Saxony state election

PROD

@Impru20 - In removing the PROD, you said that an opinion poll counts as meaningful info, but no opinion polls are cited. In fact, neither source shows notability in the slightest. Additionally, you mentioned something about WP:NCELECT, which is just about the name of the article. The name isn't the problem, it's the lack of good sources talking about this far-off election. Is there anything else that indicates this article should be kept? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 00:53, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: Is there anything else that indicates this article should be kept? Yes of course, you can start by taking a read of the multiple AfDs on similar articles which typically end in "Keep" and "Speedy keep". Let me instruct you. Among others:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Slovenian parliamentary election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2029 Western Australian state election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Indian general election (2nd nomination);
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2029 European Parliament election (2nd nomination);
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Serbian parliamentary election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Japanese general election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Irish general election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next New Zealand general election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Karnataka Legislative Assembly election;
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Swedish general election.

You can also check Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Brandenburg state election in the past year, revolving on a similar article with the exact same situation as this one, ending in a basically uncontroversial "keep".

WP:CRYSTALBALL (which is explicitly cited by WP:TOOSOON) establishes that Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. Elections are recurring events almost certain to take place (barred any exceptional circumstance whose assumption would, by itself, violate CRYSTAL). The only instances where "next" election articles do pass AfDs as "delete" (or "draftify") is when there is absolutely no information available on the specific election, which is not that common, actually.

it's the lack of good sources talking about this far-off election There are opinion polls. How are these not "good sources"? What would qualify as a "good source" according to you? Opinion polls are already information on this specific election.

You are basically going against (very established) precedent in Wikipedia on "next" elections. Still not sure if in a careful or careless way (as I note on your (failed) attempt to "speedy delete" (!!) Next German federal election). If you need any further clarification, let me know. Impru20^talk 07:15, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, NOW there's opinion polls cited. With these new sources added to the article, I have no objection. When I tagged it, the article only had two sources, both of which primarily just talked about the last election. I'm sure you can agree that those two alone aren't enough to establish notability. Thanks for improving it! Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

@Commandant Quacks-a-lot: Not, not now. This is the version before my latest edits. Opinion polls present were already sourced, I just limited myself to add a handful more that were not there (btw, this is something that YOU should have checked before attempting to nominate the article for deletion, as per WP:BEFORE points C and D).

When I tagged it, the article only had two sources, both of which primarily just talked about the last election Sources on opinion polls were external links. I just reformatted them into references, but these were already in the article. You just ignored them (and keep doing so in this discussion). Also note that, as per BEFORE, any article lacking sources does not preclude you conducting some research on whether sources for the article's topic do exist, either through a normal Google search or whatever. Yours is an argument which is not typically accepted in deletion discussions. As per WP:NEXIST, notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. Do not blame your lack of previous homework on others. Thank you. Impru20^talk 15:58, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, I see that now. Since external links aren't allowed in the main article, i sort of just glossed over them That's my mistake.

Who did I blame for anything? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Can Draft:Next Saxony state election be merged into this article? Moondragon21 (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd think so. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 23:12, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Okay I will do this. Moondragon21 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Commandant Quacks-a-lot My merge request has been rejected please help. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moondragon21 Your merge request wasn't rejected. The problem is that you didn't create one.

I removed the tag as I couldn't find an open merge proposal at AfD. Per WP:AFD2, this tag can only be placed after nominating the article at AfD, so that other editors can discuss it. Alternatively, the article can be boldly merged by any editor without discussion or notice, if the merge is uncontroversial.

So, you should follow the instructions for nominating an article for merging. FaviFake (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake Okay I see so I can boldly merge it myself. Why was the histmerge also rejected? Moondragon21 (talk) 11:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moondragon21, Primefac explained it to you as well. Among other things, hey said: "No evidence otherwise of a copy/paste pagemove". FaviFake (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@FaviFake What should I do now. Moondragon21 (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

@Moondragon21 You should follow the instructions for nominating an article for merging, or you can boldly perform the merge yourself if you feel it is uncontroversial. Do not request a history merge again. FaviFake (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

The draft and this article are nearly identical, just merge any missing content; an AFD would be pointless. Primefac (talk) 06:39, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. FaviFake (talk) 06:43, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe I did follow WP:TFOLWP as I added the translated template to the talk page and it shows in the edit history. Moondragon21 (talk) 16:58, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

It appears you did, yes. FaviFake (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

That is why I added the histmerge template. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Please read WP:HISTMERGE. It cannot be used in this case FaviFake (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Draft decline questions

Split from the above discussion

I really do not understand why my draft was rejected three times when it was recreated under a redirect which was deleted. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

You should ask the reviewers then. FaviFake (talk) 14:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I think Moondragon21 has some point here. They originally created the article in mainspace, but it was then moved into draftspace by Vestrian24Bio claiming "Not ready for mainspace, incubate in draftspace. Reason/s: custom reason". They then attempted to submit the draft for mainspace three times (in December 2025, February 2026 and May 2026) but this was rejected under TOOSOON and lack of GNG arguments (that were subsequently proven as wrong or, at the very least, as ill-advised and poorly justified). However, the move of the article into draftspace left the mainspace name open for anyone to re-create the article, which was done on 21 May by Alex234 with essentially a very similar content as the draft (note that the Background section of the mainspace article seems to follow the same structure and several literal copy-pastes from Moondragon21's draft, but using a slightly different wording; the infobox is basically the same...). This was probably done in good-faith, but it inadvertently got the affair messier, since the article's history currently attributes Alex234 for most of its content when, in fact, some of it may have been salvaged from Moondragon21's draft. Impru20^talk 15:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

As I stated in my decline of the histmerge request, both the draft and the article (at the time of its creation) were essentially word-for-word translations of the German article (hence the slight differences in wording and grammar); in other words there was no evidence that the Article was copied from the Draft. It sucks when someone writes a draft but gets pipped by someone going straight for the article, but from a procedural standpoint there isn't really anything we can do (and at the end of the day "who created the article first" shouldn't be something to fight over. Primefac (talk) 15:53, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Yup. That's what I meant. FaviFake (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not "who created the article first" it is "Why was my draft rejected three times when it was recreated days later? @Hurricane Wind and Fire:, @CostalCal: ,@Commandant Quacks-a-lot:. Moondragon21 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

What does that have to do with histmerge then? FaviFake (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Nothing,so I've split this off from that. Primefac (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)