Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/40th Canadian parliament

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 NO CONSENSUS. This crosses the two-thids thresholdy thing (lowest level that has any kind of community support to delete), but doesn't quite make it for me to delete it. In an editorial decision, revertible by anyone, I'm going to redirect it to 40th Canadian federal election. -Splash^talk 02:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 40th Canadian parliament

Believe me I don't want to nominate this. I was going to edit it for accuracy, but then stopped because it seems so unsalvageable. To start with, it's purely speculation. There probably will be a 40th Canadian parliament one day, but when that day comes, will Harper still be prime minister going into the election, as the article suggests? What if Harper's Tories resign and the Liberals form a minority government without an election? It's happened before. Even if the Tories are still the government going into the next election, how do we know Harper will be consulting the Governor General as to when the election will be held, as the article says? What if Harper resigns or dies in office? That's happened before in Canadian history, too. Which brings me to my next point. This article isn't about the 40th Canadian parliament. It's about the 40th Canadian federal election, which already has an article. And that's because we don't know anything except that the next Parliament will result from the next election. Unless I'm remembering my politics wrong, and a switch in governments actually signals a new Parliament, but even then we don't know if that's what causes the next Parliament to be formed. Delete as either speculation or unexpandable, as a simple fact, namely that there probably will be a 40th Canadian parliament one day. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 04:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, this article should be deleted and should not be recreated until the writ for the 40th General Election is dropped. Canadian popcan 05:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: textbook case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I may nominate the election article for AFD as well. 23skidoo 05:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Legally Canada will have a new parliament in no more than five years, and I see no speculation in the article. —Cuiviénen (Cuivië) 06:18, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete needless, Wiki not crystal ball. Though the current minority will likely not last that long, a Yes vote in Quebec as early as '08 may actually render this uncertain. Marskell 08:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not crystal ball. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 10:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, having a future article like this, though not obvious, has a political motivation, ie, it smacks of 'lack of neutrality'. Merosonox 11:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If this is deleted, then 113th United States Congress which starts in 2013, should be deleted, along with other similiar American articles. --Rob 12:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per 23skidoo. Rob is right about 113th United States Congress: it and similar articles shoulde be deleted.--MayerG 16:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Let's not forget Category:Future events and Category:Future elections. Given the fact its official policy to exempt these types of things from the crystal ball rule (e.g. it gives specific examples of a future election, and future Olympic games), those wishing to change that policy, should pursue a central discussion to do so; rather than randomly AFDing individual articles, which are often not the "worst cases", compared to some others. Surely, we don't want to re-argue the same issue over-and-over separately. --Rob 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per 23skidoo, as well as all the US versions of such articles -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 19:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think we all know here that the likelyhood of Canada not having a 40th Parliament in some form or another is around the same odds of someone in this afd being hit in the head by a meteor. Just remove any POV speculation to get around the crystal ball issue. Karmafist 19:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to delete, WP is full of verifiable future events: US Congress, Olympics, solar eclipses, etc. This one hardly seems crystal ballish. Turnstep 20:09, 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 20:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election. While certain specific future events may have articles, this is a thing which does not yet exist. This article will not be anything other than a placeholder until the parliament exists. Everything that could be here, will be covered at 40th Canadian federal election. So while we have U.S. Presidential Election, 2008; 44th President of the United States just redirects to that article, because no such things exists yet. While we have U.S. Senate elections, 2006 and U.S. House elections, 2006 we don't have 110th United States Congress. Peyna 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay, so the 110th congress article exists, but it's nothing more than the same thing that is on the election pages and probably would be a redirect if there was one article it could redirect to. Peyna 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - while the 40th Canadian federal election should stay, this page will not be able to contain useful information until after the election to form it (the 40th election) is called. - Jord 21:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Doesn't exist yet. --GrantNeufeld 00:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election if that article is kept, else delete. This article doesn't and will not contain any useful information that isn't about the election until the 40th parliament is actually elected. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I also agree that this article should be deleted. After all, it is purely speculation right now, I mean, the 39th Parliament hasn't even begun its first sessions, and the MP's haven't even been sworn in either. For all we know, the Canadian government might completely fall in this Parliament and form the 1st Canadian Republic, not that I'm say it's likely to happen, but we shouldn't be speculating about events that we can't even place a date to. (Grizzwald 03:30, 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, 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 (e.g., nix mention of Harper, etc.) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Though a 40th Parliment may exist someday. It's still assumptious to say that Harper will still be PM by then (Harper could suddenly resign or die in office). Therefore since this article is based partially on assumptions, it should be deleted. GoodDay 17:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Although I thought a redirect might work well, nobody will look up the 40th parliament until its formed or until the 40th election is called Royalguard11 23:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Tnikkel Ardenn 07:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to 40th Canadian federal election. Future events are permitted articles under certain circumstances, but there's nothing that can possibly be written about the Parliament resulting from an election that hasn't happened yet...or at least nothing that isn't a complete duplication of the election article. Bearcat 20:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The election is notable since it could be called at any time, but this is unnecessary until the 40th election. CrazyC83 03:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Unnecessary article until 40th election is called. --Dogbreathcanada 07:19, 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.