Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian federal election, 2010
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 was no consensus so the article is kept. The arguments on both sides make sense. Consensus seems fairly evenly split. The one change that seems to have some support and logical power is to rename the article to Next Australian federal election. I randomly picked a country (Germany) and found Next German federal election as an example. Not to compare Australia with Germany, but the context of future elections in both countries seems very similar. (This example is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument about keeping this article or the validity of the German article. It is only used here as a guideline to the renaming of the article to be in line with other articles of this type.) Pigman☿ 21:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Australian federal election, 2010 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Australian federal elections are not held on fixed terms and there is no way of knowing when the next one will be held. There is nothnig that can be written on this topic at this stage that would not be pure crystalballery, including the date. This is a contested PROD, tag removed with the rationale - "removed PROD, have some sources about the next federal election" Needless to say, this does not address the fundamental issue of not knowing anything about the election and any sources will be only speculation as well. Mattinbgn\talk 07:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Melburnian (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Keep but change article title to Next Australian federal election to overcome misleading title as done for Next Bangladeshi presidential election, Next German federal election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Palestinian general election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Serbian presidential election, Next Danish parliamentary election. Article now has some basic, but valid content. --Melburnian 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - LOVE that idea. Would fully support any change to that. Auroranorth (!) 12:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but change article title to Next Australian federal election to overcome misleading title as done for Next Bangladeshi presidential election, Next German federal election, Next Greek legislative election, Next Palestinian general election, Next United Kingdom general election, Next Serbian presidential election, Next Danish parliamentary election. Article now has some basic, but valid content. --Melburnian 11:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, also article says nothing. AnteaterZot (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - The next election could be anywhere from 2008 to early 2011. Serious crystalballism - Peripitus (Talk) 08:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. We don't know anything about the election yet including the date. In fact, there has been an early election the first time after the election of a new Government every time since World War II (1949, 1951 - 1972, 1974 - 1975, 1977 - 1983, 1984 - 1996, 1998) Depending on how things go in the Senate, there may well be one again. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - can it be speedied on total lack of meaningful content? Anyway, delete per above. Cricketgirl (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Chances are good that the next election will be a double-dissolution in 2008. Lankiveil (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- Keep I know everything about it is a bit crystal-ish, but the fact here is that there will be an election, and if it does happen in 2008, 2009 or 2010 the articles name can just be changed accordingly. There has been talk about how the libs can get back to power over in our local rag, and i think that information of that sort should be added to the article. Twenty Years 15:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Carnac the Magnificent says Delete. 17:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pastordavid (talk • contribs)
- Delete. Nothing worthwhile to write in that article until the next election campaign is officially launched. Not to mention that we don't even know whether it will indeed be in 2010. As for Twenty Years's concern, whatever may be written until then would probably be easier to find in other articles. --Blanchardb-MeMyEarsMyMouth-timed 21:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There is a need for expansion, but there is enough potential information to justify keeping the page.Thewiikione (talk) 23:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly would the article expand if there are no reliable sources out there that can predict any of the happenings related to the 2010 election? Plus, the article doesn't provide much context on what the election is, rather, on that the election is to be scheduled for that year. Looks like a clear cut delete to me. Spebi 08:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That a federal election will happen within roughly 3 years is known, but nothing else is - not even the degree of swing that the opposition will require to unseat the government, as there's almost always a redistribution in between elections which changes margins around a bit. This will be a very useful article as the campaign draws closer, but it's beyond premature at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BigHaz (talk • contribs) 09:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - An article with no meaningful content. Additions to this article at this point would be purely speculative Even the article title is speculation - as Federal terms of office are not fixed there is no reason to assume the next election will be in 2010. A more accurate sentence would read
Euryalus (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]"Elections in Australia are held at the Prime Minister's discretion but may not occur significantly prior to the three-year mark unless approved by the Governor General following Senate rejection of a piece of legislation twice within the term. Otherwise, elections must be called within three years of the first meeting of parliament (Constitution, s28). The next Australian Federal election will therefore occur sometime after about mid-year 2008 and before January or February 2011 (depending on the date of the first Parliament following the 2007 election)."
- Strong keep. WP:CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and cites the next US election as an example. The only difference I can see is that the year is uncertain. The election we just had could have been as late as 2008. This didn't stop the 2007 article from being created with the "2007" in the title, shortly after the 2004 election. There is currently no meaningful content in the article but a "election calendar" section, as in this revision of the 2007 election article, would be entirely useful, accurate, verifiable data. I'm not sure when parliament is due to sit again so I can't do the calendar myself. -- Chuq (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand the point you're making but future election articles are generally only valid where there is at the very least some useful data to add (for example, candidates or major policy themes). They should not be created so far in advance that there is nothing useful to say. Where they have been created this far in advance, they are usually deleted (see here for example). I would support an article on the next Australian election in say, 18 months when the date and likely leaders will be clearer. For the immediate future we have no useful information other than that there will be another Federal election one day and it might be at any time within the next three or so years. This doesn't notable enough to justify the article. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That exact article is used as an example in WP:CRYSTAL as to what should be deleted. It's equivalent would be Australian federal election, 2013 or something similar. This article is more similar to United States presidential election, 2008 (eg. "the next one".). So far as the Aus 2010 article goes, we do know by what date the election must legally be called. We do know the latest it can be held. We do know on what date the senate terms expire. Barring anything unusual, the election is going to happen. it's a textbook case of what is allowed under WP:CRYSTAL. People write these policies for a reason, so that we only need to have discussions like these once! -- Chuq (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a considerable difference between the next US Presidential election and the next Australian federal one, though. In the US, they're already campaigning for the party nominations, so there's a wealth of content that can be added about who's running and whatever else. In Australia, they haven't even sworn the new PM and his cabinet into their positions yet, so the smoke hasn't really cleared from last Saturday. Except in the sense that all politics is election-driven, there's not anything approaching an election campaign on yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct about this exact example at WP:CRYSTAL. To clarify my point, the quote is: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Applying this to the next Australian election article - preparation is not in progress, speculation about it is not well documented and the article cannot be considered an appropriate topic because nothing can be said about it which is verifiable and not original research. Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of my longwinded comment being - just being the next election is not notable. There needs to be some verifiable information to make the article more than an empty shell. This article has no such information and none will be available for a long time to come. Euryalus (talk) 09:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You're correct about this exact example at WP:CRYSTAL. To clarify my point, the quote is: "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." Applying this to the next Australian election article - preparation is not in progress, speculation about it is not well documented and the article cannot be considered an appropriate topic because nothing can be said about it which is verifiable and not original research. Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a considerable difference between the next US Presidential election and the next Australian federal one, though. In the US, they're already campaigning for the party nominations, so there's a wealth of content that can be added about who's running and whatever else. In Australia, they haven't even sworn the new PM and his cabinet into their positions yet, so the smoke hasn't really cleared from last Saturday. Except in the sense that all politics is election-driven, there's not anything approaching an election campaign on yet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That exact article is used as an example in WP:CRYSTAL as to what should be deleted. It's equivalent would be Australian federal election, 2013 or something similar. This article is more similar to United States presidential election, 2008 (eg. "the next one".). So far as the Aus 2010 article goes, we do know by what date the election must legally be called. We do know the latest it can be held. We do know on what date the senate terms expire. Barring anything unusual, the election is going to happen. it's a textbook case of what is allowed under WP:CRYSTAL. People write these policies for a reason, so that we only need to have discussions like these once! -- Chuq (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I understand the point you're making but future election articles are generally only valid where there is at the very least some useful data to add (for example, candidates or major policy themes). They should not be created so far in advance that there is nothing useful to say. Where they have been created this far in advance, they are usually deleted (see here for example). I would support an article on the next Australian election in say, 18 months when the date and likely leaders will be clearer. For the immediate future we have no useful information other than that there will be another Federal election one day and it might be at any time within the next three or so years. This doesn't notable enough to justify the article. Euryalus (talk) 04:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. Great argument by Chuq - why should the US get its article so early and Australia can't? I would suggest that 2010 would be appropriate but 2013 (or whatever year it's held in) is not. Auroranorth (!) 09:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please, because the US election is next year, and so is closer than 2010, and therefore there are more reliable sources out there and there is already discussion about candidates in the election, and other content related to the topic – nothing can be said about the 2010 election right now. Spebi 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2008 U.S. presidential election article was created in 2003, nominated for deletion, and survived. We didn't even know who the sitting president would be at the time! Note that I don't have any particular affinity for this article, I'm just wondering why the inconsistent application of policy? If this article gets deleted, it will be recreated over and over by people even if they read the policy. I'm not a stickler for needless procedure/policy, I just don't see an obvious reason or precedent that indicates the article is inappropriate. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the ability to prevent pages from recreation for a reason, and I don't really see how keeping this article will do much more than please those who don't read policy, and save them from the effort of recreating the article. I'm not complaining that this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL", I'm complaining about the fact that the US election and the 2010 election are being compared to each other. It's quite obvious that there is content that one can use to make an article out of about the US 2008 election, but there's pretty much nothing out there about the upcoming 2010 election apart from the fact that it will occur in 2010 (unless Rudd or whoever is in government decides to delay it until early 2011, hypothetical, but meh), and so it serves pretty much as a fork for unsourced rumours that are obviously untrue. Should more information become available about the election, I'd be happy to have the page restored or support a complete rewrite of the page containing only the information that is sourced reliably. Spebi 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment - the point is not solely the amount of time to the next election. Its the facts that a) preparation is not in progress; b) any speculation about it is not well-documented and c) nothing, not even the year it will be held in, is verifiable. In 2003 preparations were already under way for 2008 Presidential campaigns. Sitting Presidents are rarely defeated after one term (four times in the last hundred years) and are never defeated in primaries, so serious Democratic and Republican candidates were already preparing for 2008 in 2003. The US campaign machinery and fundraising is also of a scale that requires many years of buildup, especially given that there is no such thing as uniform party support for any candidate (unlike Ausralia). So - a 2003 article on the 2008 Presidential campaign might be justified. This doesn;t of itslef justify an article on the 20?? Australian election campaign, for the reasons outlined above. Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. As I said, as more reliable sources that verify new facts that are uncovered about the elections are found, I am happy to support the recreation of the article. As it is right now, as just a placeholder, assuming that the election will be held at all, and if it is, in 2010, I see no valid reason to keep the article. Spebi 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that's a worldwide view you're taking, there. We can safely assume that the election will be held. Auroranorth (!) 10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh. There you go again, "assumming" that the election will occur in 2010. That's all anyone can do, "assume" things about the election, but provide no reliable sources to verify these things that are being assumed. Who knows? Rudd (or whoever is in government) may decide to delay the election all the way until early 2011, and so the election won't be in 2010. You can't "safely assume" anything will occur in the future, hence why we have policies like WP:CRYSTAL in place, so articles like these aren't created. CRYSTAL says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." – terms go for three years, but I don't think that elections are scheduled as such, as said above by someone. I'll say this for the last time – there are no reliable sources to guarantee that the election will occur in 2010. Spebi 20:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope that's a worldwide view you're taking, there. We can safely assume that the election will be held. Auroranorth (!) 10:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree completely. As I said, as more reliable sources that verify new facts that are uncovered about the elections are found, I am happy to support the recreation of the article. As it is right now, as just a placeholder, assuming that the election will be held at all, and if it is, in 2010, I see no valid reason to keep the article. Spebi 09:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Comment - the point is not solely the amount of time to the next election. Its the facts that a) preparation is not in progress; b) any speculation about it is not well-documented and c) nothing, not even the year it will be held in, is verifiable. In 2003 preparations were already under way for 2008 Presidential campaigns. Sitting Presidents are rarely defeated after one term (four times in the last hundred years) and are never defeated in primaries, so serious Democratic and Republican candidates were already preparing for 2008 in 2003. The US campaign machinery and fundraising is also of a scale that requires many years of buildup, especially given that there is no such thing as uniform party support for any candidate (unlike Ausralia). So - a 2003 article on the 2008 Presidential campaign might be justified. This doesn;t of itslef justify an article on the 20?? Australian election campaign, for the reasons outlined above. Euryalus (talk) 09:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- We have the ability to prevent pages from recreation for a reason, and I don't really see how keeping this article will do much more than please those who don't read policy, and save them from the effort of recreating the article. I'm not complaining that this is a "violation of WP:CRYSTAL", I'm complaining about the fact that the US election and the 2010 election are being compared to each other. It's quite obvious that there is content that one can use to make an article out of about the US 2008 election, but there's pretty much nothing out there about the upcoming 2010 election apart from the fact that it will occur in 2010 (unless Rudd or whoever is in government decides to delay it until early 2011, hypothetical, but meh), and so it serves pretty much as a fork for unsourced rumours that are obviously untrue. Should more information become available about the election, I'd be happy to have the page restored or support a complete rewrite of the page containing only the information that is sourced reliably. Spebi 09:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The 2008 U.S. presidential election article was created in 2003, nominated for deletion, and survived. We didn't even know who the sitting president would be at the time! Note that I don't have any particular affinity for this article, I'm just wondering why the inconsistent application of policy? If this article gets deleted, it will be recreated over and over by people even if they read the policy. I'm not a stickler for needless procedure/policy, I just don't see an obvious reason or precedent that indicates the article is inappropriate. -- Chuq (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh please, because the US election is next year, and so is closer than 2010, and therefore there are more reliable sources out there and there is already discussion about candidates in the election, and other content related to the topic – nothing can be said about the 2010 election right now. Spebi 09:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Australian Federal parliamentary elections are not "held every three year" as the article claims - they're held within 3 years of the new parliament first sitting or any day before this if the PM wants an early election as the Federal parliament doesn't have a fixed term. As the parliament won't sit until early next year the election could be held as late as 2011 so the article is fundamentally wrong. More to the point, we have no way at all of knowing when the election will be held at this time, so any article which sets a date for the election is pure crystal-ball gazing. It's likely that the election will be in 2010, but there's no reason at all to assume this at the present. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The 2007 article was created before the election was called and at that point the election could have been held in early 2008. Auroranorth (!) 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't think that the 2007 article should have been created back in 2004. Looking at the early versions of that article (eg, [1], it was clearly cystal-ball gazing and wouldn't survive today. Just how wrong those predictions were (eg, Latham leading the ALP and Costello leading the Libs) highlights the fact that nothing at all can currently be accurately predicted about the next election at this stage. --Nick Dowling 22:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - How come the Phillipines gets a 2010 article: Philippine general election, 2010?? Auroranorth (!) 13:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know anything about the Philippines electoral system, but I'd suggest that the existence of other stuff isn't a good reason to keep the article we are discussing here. The presence of a reasonably detailed Philippines article doesn't address any of the problems raised with the Australian article ovr the course of this debate. Euryalus 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, please stop comparing this to elections of other countries with different systems of governments. They are not all the same, and I think we've established why this article shouldn't exist, anyway. Spebi 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid point, I would ask that participants keep that in mind. Auroranorth (!) 01:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Australian federal election, 2011 after further research showed the most likely date would be in early 2011. Auroranorth (!) 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference you've added is the timeline for the election which we've just completed, and says nothing about when the next election will be. Australian federal elections are almost never held in the first few months of the year and the PM would be criticised if he waited much more than 3 years after the election to call the next election (as Howard was criticised in early October), so 2011 is highly unlikely. As noted above, new federal governments normally call an early election so 2010 isn't guaranteed either. Face it, this article is premature and is pure speculation. --Nick Dowling 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixing the reference now. Auroranorth (!) 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Senate election part is definitely not speculation. Auroranorth (!) 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two references, when taken together, simply state that the election has to be held by early 2011. They don't say when the election will be held so don't support the use of 2011. The senate part is also speculation as there's no fixed date for the election either as it's ultimately going to be held on on whatever date the HoR election is held on. I'm no expert on the mechanics of Senate elections, but I believe that once the Senate rejects a bill three times Rudd also has the option of calling a double dissolution election in which the entire senate is up for election. Given that the Australian federal parliament doesn't operate on fixed terms, we simply cannot predict the year the next election will be held on seven days after the last election. Furthermore, in a parliamentary democracy it's not possible to predict who the candiates will be this early from the election either - both Rudd and Nelson can lose their jobs if they make bad mistakes before the election. It's probably not going to be feasible to create an article with reliable and properly sourced material on the next election until 2009. --Nick Dowling 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As soon as we know when the date the parliament next sits (which will be February, probably the 5th or 12th) then we will have verifiable details of the date at which the next election must be called, and latest possible date of the election itself. That would be verifiable, accurate information about the next election. -- Chuq (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But all that would give us is a single sentance (eg, "the next federal election must be called by 1 February 2011, but will probably be called before this date"). That's not enough for an article. --Nick Dowling 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is more detailed than that - I have already pointed out this revision above as an example. -- Chuq (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- With the exception of the final section of that revision (sourced to the constitution et al), which is not an overly long article and doesn't seem like the best advertisement for what to do with article space, everything else in the revision cited was unsourced speculation, which isn't a great look at all, particularly since the majority of it can only become more concrete around 2 years from now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As I noted above, the first version of the 2007 Election article which was created in 2004 demonstrates exactly why it's much too early to create an article on the next election. The 2004 article was nothing but unsourced crystal ball gazing, most of which turned out to be completetly wrong. As there are no reliable sources on anything concerning the next election other than the date on which the election must be held by (and even this isn't going to be the date, or probably even the year, the election is actually held on), the article simply can't be justified yet. --Nick Dowling 22:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is more detailed than that - I have already pointed out this revision above as an example. -- Chuq (talk) 10:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggest we keep it as an estimate until the House meets. Auroranorth (!) 07:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But all that would give us is a single sentance (eg, "the next federal election must be called by 1 February 2011, but will probably be called before this date"). That's not enough for an article. --Nick Dowling 09:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As soon as we know when the date the parliament next sits (which will be February, probably the 5th or 12th) then we will have verifiable details of the date at which the next election must be called, and latest possible date of the election itself. That would be verifiable, accurate information about the next election. -- Chuq (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Those two references, when taken together, simply state that the election has to be held by early 2011. They don't say when the election will be held so don't support the use of 2011. The senate part is also speculation as there's no fixed date for the election either as it's ultimately going to be held on on whatever date the HoR election is held on. I'm no expert on the mechanics of Senate elections, but I believe that once the Senate rejects a bill three times Rudd also has the option of calling a double dissolution election in which the entire senate is up for election. Given that the Australian federal parliament doesn't operate on fixed terms, we simply cannot predict the year the next election will be held on seven days after the last election. Furthermore, in a parliamentary democracy it's not possible to predict who the candiates will be this early from the election either - both Rudd and Nelson can lose their jobs if they make bad mistakes before the election. It's probably not going to be feasible to create an article with reliable and properly sourced material on the next election until 2009. --Nick Dowling 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Senate election part is definitely not speculation. Auroranorth (!) 04:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixing the reference now. Auroranorth (!) 04:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The reference you've added is the timeline for the election which we've just completed, and says nothing about when the next election will be. Australian federal elections are almost never held in the first few months of the year and the PM would be criticised if he waited much more than 3 years after the election to call the next election (as Howard was criticised in early October), so 2011 is highly unlikely. As noted above, new federal governments normally call an early election so 2010 isn't guaranteed either. Face it, this article is premature and is pure speculation. --Nick Dowling 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Moving to Australian federal election, 2011 after further research showed the most likely date would be in early 2011. Auroranorth (!) 03:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a valid point, I would ask that participants keep that in mind. Auroranorth (!) 01:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, please stop comparing this to elections of other countries with different systems of governments. They are not all the same, and I think we've established why this article shouldn't exist, anyway. Spebi 20:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I don't know anything about the Philippines electoral system, but I'd suggest that the existence of other stuff isn't a good reason to keep the article we are discussing here. The presence of a reasonably detailed Philippines article doesn't address any of the problems raised with the Australian article ovr the course of this debate. Euryalus 19:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The 2007 article was created before the election was called and at that point the election could have been held in early 2008. Auroranorth (!) 13:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this and Australian federal election, 2011 - until it's been called (or until it's not possible to call it in 2010 or 2012), I think this is too crystal-ish. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 07:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So you would have agreed to not creating Australian federal election, 2007 until 17 October 2007 then? -- Chuq (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I was set to say "delete", but this comment by Chuq gave me pause. Australian federal election, 2007 was created on October 11, 2004 ([2]), and that was pure crystal-ballery. The current version of Australian federal election, 2010 is already far superior, containing as it does properly referenced information about the latest possible date of the election, and also the list of senators up for re-election. Oh, furthermore, for precedence sake, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2008. Deletion discussion held more than three and a half years prior to the election. The state of that article at that time was [3]. --Stormie 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been remarked upon before, the American electoral calendar and political system allows a considerably more detailed article at a much earlier point in the election cycle than many other systems do. Additionally, the fact that a different article was originally created several years ago by a user engaging in crystal ballery and wasn't nominated for deletion doesn't intrinsically explain why this article created quite recently by a user engaging in the same activity should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also worth noting that Wikipedia's standards are much higher now than they were back in 2004, so just because an article survived in 2004 doesn't mean that it would survive today - the 2004-era election article wouldn't stand a chance of survival today. --Nick Dowling 09:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been remarked upon before, the American electoral calendar and political system allows a considerably more detailed article at a much earlier point in the election cycle than many other systems do. Additionally, the fact that a different article was originally created several years ago by a user engaging in crystal ballery and wasn't nominated for deletion doesn't intrinsically explain why this article created quite recently by a user engaging in the same activity should be kept. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is nothing to be said about the upcoming election until later in time when there is some clarity. At this point, there's not even the hint of when the election will be called beyond legal bounds on dates. -- Whpq 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete Even though the next election is expected to be in 2010, that is not yet certain at all. As above, anything that the article says now can only be speculation, as any sources about it. Jame§ugrono 06:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I don't see that it matters all that much that we don't know the exact date: if that's an argument to delete does it also mean that we cannot have this article until (in the case of the 2007 elections) 6 weeks before and only after the PM has notified the GG. The article is a useful placeholder for templates and the like and contains useful information now. We're not talking about endless strings of future elections, just the next one only. —Moondyne 08:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too much Crystal-balling with the likely possibility that one or more senators will retire or leave. Leaving the page would mean that it requires constant updating. Policies or opinions are also likely to change during the course of Labor's term in office. PookeyMaster (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe Chuq is correct on this one. --Kieran Bennett (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename to Next Australian federal election as Melburnian has suggested. I do agree with the nom that it is a bit early for someone to have created this, but here it is, and already it is developing into an article worth reading. It will come as no surprise that there is already a growing pool of news about the next election, more will be released each day, and you can bet your last Australian dollar coin that there is planning going on. Deleting the article now will only cause this disrupt^H^H^H^H^H^Hdiscussion to occur again, and WP:SALTing the page only restricts the creation at the right time, whenever that is. John Vandenberg (talk) 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For better reading if this suggestion is implemented, I would use "43rd" instead of "Next". Note the Canadians have already done this (40th Canadian federal election) at least in part due to their presently unstable minority system in which a single vote of no confidence could bring on an election at a moment's notice. Orderinchaos 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not so sure - I would think that most people will not know that the 43rd Australian Federal Election is the next one, and I'm not aware of any practice of numbering of Australian elections. --Melburnian (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- For better reading if this suggestion is implemented, I would use "43rd" instead of "Next". Note the Canadians have already done this (40th Canadian federal election) at least in part due to their presently unstable minority system in which a single vote of no confidence could bring on an election at a moment's notice. Orderinchaos 10:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep but rename to Next Australian federal election. This is the next national election to be held in Australia adn there is verifiable information in the article on when the election must be held by and which Senators will be facing re-election. It therefore meets WP:CRYSTAL as an event almost certain to take place and with everything in the article being verifiable. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.