Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canadian federal election, 2015

Add links
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 strong no consensus lol -- Y not? 15:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian federal election, 2015

[edit]
Canadian federal election, 2015 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, speculative article about an election that may not occur for another 4.5 years. Speedy deletion was contested. AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-->The above was me. I change from KEEP to MOVE. 174.118.61.19 (talk) 02:10, 4 May 2011 (UTC) BOTH the above are me Nickjbor (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I forget this thing logs me out.[reply]

  • Move to Next Canadian federal election. As we've just seen, these elections don't necessarily take place every 4 years, as it stands this title contravenes WP:CRYSTALBALL. At WP:UK Politics we have used Next United Kingdom general election as an article title - we are virtually assured it is going to happen, but do not know the date - and then move the article once the date is known. Zangar (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/42nd Canadian federal election; the only new information is that an election before 2015 is unlikely (but not impossible, and "war or insurrection" are not the only possibilities). Hairhorn (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Move back to 42nd Canadian federal election or Next Canadian federal election. We know there will be a 42nd election. We don't know the date. The four year rule has never actually applied, as we've had early elections (even when there wasn't a no-confidence vote). The Election Act could always be amendment. So, there could constitutionally be an election anytime between now and 2016, as only 5 year limit is set in stone (barring war, which can extend it even longer than 5). The current content of the article is sheer rubbish, when it says "barring war or insurrection". An election can be called for far less. If the PM asks the GG for an election, and he agrees, then there will be one. This article provides no information, and some misinformation. It's ok to mention the 2015 date in the article, with an explanation, and with a source, but we should not put "2015" in the article title, as it gives a false sense of certainty. --Rob (talk) 18:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... Despite "tradition", I don't think we should have a page for this topic yet (under any title)... we should not create articles based on speculation (and that is all we could have at this point in time), so let's at least wait until there is one solid verifiable fact to report (such as the date) before we create an article for it. Blueboar (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to either of the two possibilities stated above. The title certainly violates CRYSTAL, but the article itself doesn't—as others have stated and this Yank well knows, the election is definitely going to take place at some time (barring apocalyptic disaster), and it's certain that all parties will be making moves with this election in mind. — Dale Arnett (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deleting or moving it would assume the violation of federal law, which is very biased & non-neutral POV. I'm no Harper fan, but he not only created this law but when he broke it used the minority Parliament excuse which doesn't apply now. He hasn't given any evidence of plans to break this law, until he does so it should stay as is. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to 42nd Canadian federal election. It's not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to have articles on events on such as this, which we know will occur (otherwise, all the articles we have on future U.S. elections would be deleted). It's just a question of when this election will occur. As Harper has a majority government, it's most likely that his government will last the full 4 years, but still, I think this article would be better suited by moving to a new title. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 23:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep / move. The date is not speculative, nor is the election itself. It's not WP:CRYSTAL as it is a fixed date, unless otherwise changed. But yes, it should be moved to 42nd Canadian federal election. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 00:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep While I could see Harper saying "Since we had so many elections we'll go the max 5 instead of 4" THAT would be crystal ballin'. No evidence this will happen in any other year (for the Harper gov to fall again, more than a dozen of his members would have to join with all 4 other parties), in the unlikely event it changes we can move the article THEN. --TheTruthiness (talk) 05:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see Talk:British Columbia general election, 2013#Requested move, it isn't our job to judge the strength of a government. 117Avenue (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, what is the benefit of including "2015" in the title? Nobody is going to type the exact article title, regardless. The article content can mention the date (with a source) regardless of the title. So, why is "2015" in the title better than "42nd"? Also, early elections can happen without a no confidence, as has already occurred with Harper under the "fixed date" law. Once in Ontario, the government had a large majority, but called an election more than two years before being legally required to (max was 5 years), for no apparent reason, other than being high in the polls. Also, unlike the US, if something happens to the leader in office, requiring a replacement, it's very likely that there'd be an early election. An election can happen over a major issue (e.g. like a trade deal). I concede the election will very likely be in 2015, but so what? Even if it's 99% likely, there's still no reason to include that in the title. There's no rule that says we have to embed information into article titles. This isn't the US, where it's common to here references to the "2012" election, or even "2016" election. In Canada, the next election is generally just called "the next election". --Rob (talk) 07:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In those that have created fixed election dates, the only elections called early were because of no confidence votes. The Ontario example you give was before they has fixed date legislation. However, the first may be this year if rumours of a BC election hold true. 117Avenue (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's an article called United States presidential election, 2012. It's not 100% guaranteed, World War III could break out but it exists with that title because that's what the current law dictates. Also it's WP:OR with this "the next election" line. In order for this not to happen in 2015 current law would have to be changed (unlikely considering who created it) or the majority gov would have to declare no confidence in itself (unlikely for obvious reasons). --208.38.59.161 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The US is totally different. It has fixed elections written into the constitution, and it has been consistently followed them for over two centuries. If the US didn't keep fixed terms, it would be a first in centuries. If Canada did follow any fixed term, that would be a first. And, if you read the law (the amended Canada Election Act), it clearly says that it does not take away from the discretion of the Governor General. So, even if the law is kept on the books, and followed, we can have an early election, as has already happened under Harper. There was a failed attempt by a person to stop Harper from calling an early election in 2008, without a non-confidence vote, and the judge refused to even consider the matter. Let's not confuse Canada and the US. --Rob (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • But Bill C-16, passed in 2006, assures that the 43rd election will take place on the third Monday of October in 2015. And while the Governor-general can override this date, it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that he will, because we are in a majority government that has no reason to seek dissolution before the September. So we should be going by the date of October 19th, 2015 until further notice. EricLeb01 (Page | Talk) 23:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not assuming anything. I don't know. You don't know. I'm not advocating for a different CRYSTAL ball prediction, I'm advocating none. The law, constitution, and history, all make clear that there is no guarantee of when the election will be. Also, I am fine with mentioning 2015, in the article, provided an appropriate citation, which should be easy to get. In the article we can state things more completely, than can be done in a title. --Rob (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • All Canadian federal election articles are titled with a year, so if we rename it to 42nd we'll have to change it again later. Since there's an existing law for it to be in 2015 (we didn't just pick this date at random or pull an assumption out of our asses) and no credible other year, it's a colossal waste of everyone's time to change the title until there's some credible evidence Bill C-16 won't be followed. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But there is a guarantee there will be a next election. We just don't know in which year it will happen. That's why a move to a better title has been suggested. CanuckMy page89 (talk), 07:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By this argument only things that are in the past can have articles. Albums set to be released the next day wouldn't be allowed because it might get cancelled at last minute...which is obviously dumb. --208.38.59.161 (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super duper double dog dare stronger than the strongest strong infinity +1 keep I have no problem with renaming it 42nd Canadian general election, but this election is the next election and it WILL happen sometime in the future. Hishighness420 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move The election will happen; we've got similar pages up on the next UK General Election, not to mention the US Senate Elections in 2016, so I think the article in general is covered as not being too far out. And as it stands, the law at least implies a fixed date (I know Harper can move to change the law, or in a crunch he could "throw" a VONC), so I'd say that we're not in a bad position either keeping the title or changing it, but I'd err on the side of keeping it unless there's a serious indication that he's going to jump early...doing otherwise would seem to itself violate WP:CRYSTAL.Tyrenon (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or move but not delete. We need a page to post the relevant information that will take place after this latest election, including the results of future bi-elections. Also, we need to post future polling results. Juve2000 (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a humorous example of how badly written and sourced this article is, the only source cited that supports a specific year for an election in Canada says the "First fixed-date election to be held in 2012." --Rob (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It will be updated at some point. 117Avenue (talk) 00:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the basis of most keep votes seems to be that, yes, there really will be an election in the future. But this is simply a factoid that doesn't merit an entire entry to itself, it can be mentioned somewhere else. AFD is about what merits an entry, not about what the encyclopedia can and cannot mention. Hairhorn (talk) 01:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You think the next federal election in the 2nd largest country in the world isn't worthy of an article? --208.38.59.161 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, not now when there is a near complete absence of useful information about it. And Canada is only second largest by geography, which has squat to do with elections; it is one of the smallest developed countries by population. Hairhorn (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it should be noted that the article was moved while this discussion was still open. 117Avenue (talk) 16:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is difficult to decide. Harper's got a majority government now, unlike in 2008, when he called a snap election. Fixed elections isn't in the Canadian Constitution, yet we keep hearing on the media that there will not be another election until October 2015. GoodDay (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the author advocating that the article be deleted, whether its name is the 2015 election or the 42nd general election? Juve2000 (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please clarify whom you mean by author? If you mean the user who created the article, Clumsyone (talk · contribs), he/she hasn't made a Wikipedia contribution since creating the article on 3 May. If you mean the current top contributor of the article, myself, I voted it be moved to 42nd, pending a related move discussion. Or possibly you mean the user who created this page. 117Avenue (talk) 01:51, 11 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Canadian_federal_election,_2015&oldid=1137672623"