Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40th Canadian federal election

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 of the debate was keep. Shanel 01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40th Canadian federal election

Like the article up for AFD on the 40th Parliament, this is a pure case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Will this election happen? Yes. But other than that there is no way to know when it will happen, especially since the 39th election is less than a week old! Let's at least wait until a writ is dropped, or Harper makes an indication he may call an election. 23skidoo 05:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure how this is a pure case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Specifically which part of it applies to this case and rules it out as an appropriate article? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball specifically mentions that 2008 U.S. presidential election is an appropriate topic, so how is the next US federal election any different from the next Canadian federal election? (other then one having a specific date and the other not) Tnikkel 06:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. Personally I feel it is far too early for this type of article but this event will happen, much like 2024.
• Delete. As noted on the Parliament page, this election actually may not happen, at least in the expected form, if there is a soveriegnty vote in Quebec and Yes takes it. I doubt it, but we have crystal ball for reasons of this sort. Marskell 08:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. "Next" (and, for very important elections, maybe even "next but one") elections, particularly for important legislatures are notable, and not crystal ball-like. Batmanand 09:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The next future elections exist as articles for a variety of countries, and I see no reason to delete this one. —Nightstallion (?) 10:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. As per Marskell, and its existence before an election call can be considered a form of lack of neutrality. Merosonox 11:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep based on clear precident for certain elections. Also, its worth noting certain signficant election related events, such as party nominations, will likely happen before an official election call (since everybody wants to be ready for what they know will happen). It wouldn't make much sense to delete this today, only to recreate a little later. --Rob 11:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Very important upcoming election. CalJW 13:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but remove speculation from the article. It should only state facts, not what may or may not happen. Peyna 15:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • It's worth nothing there will be a 40th federal election no later than 5 years from now (assuming Canada's government is still largely intact at that point). Peyna 20:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I can't believe this article is being supported. If that's the case maybe someone should create articles for the 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th ... we have to draw the line somewhere! 23skidoo 16:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Quite simple, we draw the line at the next election. Just make sure the article gives cites for any kind of speculation, etc. Quoting from WP:NOT:

Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event isn't already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. A schedule of future events may also be appropriate.

Peyna 16:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Peyna's got it right - there is a line, and its supported by numerous precedents on Wikipedia. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. --Otter Escaping North 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article on the 39th election was created soon after the 38th election ended. - SimonP 16:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - The 39th Parliament will be led by the smallest minority government ever in Canada, barely 40% of the seats, and all of the previous Conservative minorities (all four of them) lasted less than a year (1926 - a matter of days, but a special case; 1957-1958 - 9 months; 1962-1963 - 10 monnths; 1979-1980 - 9 months). It behooves us to start this article and track the positioning of the 39th Parliament so that we will have a good article should the 39th Parliament fall as quickly as history suggests it might - Jord 19:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per arguments at other AfD. Turnstep 20:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep So far no one has quoted any specific part of the Wikipedia policy to support their position that this should be deleted. The only thing they have done is quote the non-specific title of one section of Wikipedia policy. I may change my vote if someone quotes something specific in the future. Tnikkel 20:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Write the article as the event approaches. Arbustoo 22:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep the above argument is invalid, the election can happen at anytime, the government stands a likely chance of being accidently defeated, we could wake up one morning in the next few months and find were in another election. --Cloveious 06:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep While it's not a bad idea to get the perfunctories out of the way, particularly given the short-lived nature of the last government/assembly, this article is a tad premature just yet ... hell, we're just emerging from an elxn and the recently elected Parliament hasn't even met yet! I don't think we should delete an article that will be resurrected later, however. If it remains, it should be edited to generalise any notions therein. As well, when the date is known, the article should be renamed to be consistent with prior election articles: Canadian federal election, 200x. (Speaking of which: this may pose a problem if the 40th is sometime in 2006!) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Problem's already been encountered: see, say, UK general election, 1974. Shimgray | talk | 21:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ah, my thoughts exactly! (Also consider variants Canadian federal election, 2006 (MONTH), Canadian federal election, 2006 (SEASON), or similar.) However, this may be premature too and this is an unlikely venue to discuss. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 21:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Future election articles are already set up for the US and other countries, so why not Canada Cmc0 17:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep with caveat While it's useful to have this article in a stubby form in which events leading up to he next election can be added, passages predicting that the parliament will be unstable or predicting what the major issues leading to the next election may be are purely speculative, particularly when they are presented in the form of "some pundits think...". Homey 01:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep There are countless other examples of such prognosticating articles, it does not seem to violate any of Wikipedia's policies (the suggestion that predicting an election violates neutrality makes no sense to me), and (as has been said) this is a very precarious Parliament. --Otter Escaping North 15:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as we are under a weak minority government that can fall at any time (although it may not). CrazyC83 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. But attention needs to be kept to ensure it is prognosticating. --Dogbreathcanada 07:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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.