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 delete. Consensus is that there is not yet anything useful to say about this future election.  Sandstein  05:50, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

42nd Canadian federal election[edit]

42nd Canadian federal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Customarily an election article is not created until the current election is completed, which is May 2. WP:CRYSTAL states that "if preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented". The page only contains one documentation (Vancouver Sun), which is for the date. doesn't contain any third party sources. 117Avenue (talk) 02:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it's best we handle one federal election at a time. Once we learn of the results of the 2011 fed election? then this article can be 'created'. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• The reason for creating this article at this time, rather than after May 2, is solely to document the latest possible date for the election. This is important information that complements the current election article which links to this article and establishes the time period for which the Parliament elected in the current election will sit. The law establishing dates for Canadian elections is relatively new and has never fully come into play due to Canada having had only minority governments since then; however it can be and should be documented. Additionally the WP:CRYSTAL article says nothing about a 'custom' of creating an election article only after the last election is complete. Indeed, it is silent on this subject, stating that the 2012 U.S. presidential election is appropriate for an article, whereas the 2020 U.S. presidential election is not--remaining silent on the 2016 U.S. presidential election which would be the roughly equivalent U.S. election. The U.S. situation is not entirely equivalent, either, because the setting of final date for one Canadian election establishes a potential date for the next--giving material appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Other material in this article, such as potential party leaders in 2015, may have been speculative in nature but has already been appropriately removed.Dash77 (talk) 03:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that the 42nd election is required to exist for the 41st election to be properly written isn't a valid point, the link can simply be excluded. I don't think the one source, and one fact (the date), constitutes "well documented". 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two more references to the article to more clearly document the law under which this fact--the date--is established. Additionally, although my purpose in creating the article had nothing to do with the 2011 Census, someone correctly pointed out that the Census may affect the number of seats/provincial representation in this election. I added some references for that; it could be argued that the 2011 Census represents part of the "preparation" for the next election.Dash77 (talk) 04:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't questioning the law or the date, which I knew was correct. The "documented speculation" count still stands at zero. 117Avenue (talk) 06:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I just read a whole lot of articles about the election in Wikipedia and the major trouble is that there is only a chart showing where the NDP is strong if you look at a very obscure article. Whoever wrote Wikipedia isn't making it easy to find info. Kewlarticle (talk) 03:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with a deletion discussion? 117Avenue (talk) 03:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but possibly incubate The page is documented on more than just the date, as the actual procedure may change for the election (and is only relevant to the 42nd, but not the current). Either way, both the nom and the one voter so far seem to agree that it will be notable in five weeks, so it may as well be kept, incubated or as a user page, if that's a more preferable solution. Further, the theoretical date isn't speculation, it's law, unless the House decides not to follow that law. Ravendrop 03:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see a valid reason why this page should not be kept, since it would be recreated after the current election anyways. I don't think it interferes with the current election's page, and by keeping it, it's not going to be a red link on the various templates that link to "next election". Maybe my rationale is unclear, but deleting a page that will be recreated very soon and that is not WP:CRYSTAL seems to me like "bureaucratic-creep". Cheers - CharlieEchoTango (talk) 04:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If deleted, it would be re-created only a month from now, so reasoning "it's not notable now, but it will be soon", along with the WP:CRYSTAL arguments presented, both seem to be weak. Bcperson89 (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article contains no real information. About the only thing certain is that there will be a 42nd election. We also say there will be an election on October 19, 2015 unless there isn't. That's basically a tautology. One can make an equally valid prediction, by saying the world will end on October 19, 2015, unless it doesn't. Everything happens on a particular date, unless it doesn't. Canada doesn't have fixed election dates. The legislation requiring them has already been ignored (in 2008 an election was called, without a no confidence vote). And there's also the possibility of the law being changed by parliament (since it's not part of the constitution). We say how many seats are in the current parliament, but not how many there will be in the future, because we don't know. So, there will be 308 seats, unless there isn't. Great. Articles like this are great for the US, when there are numerous meaningful, notable things that can said about future elections. We should employ the general notability guideline. Where are the multiple independent substantial sources covering the 42nd federal election? So far, all I see are half a dozen sources that don't mention 2015. Notice how the first citation mentions this year's election, but makes no mention at all, of 2015. This entire article is basically WP:SNYTH with a dab of WP:OR. Let's wait till we actually have elections on pre-determined dates, before we pretend they exist in Canada. --Rob (talk) 06:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article asserts that the 42nd election will be held no later than October 19, 2015, but that it might be earlier. In a democracy the date of the next election is, in and of itself, a notable piece of information because it establishes an important parameter of the current election--how long the term to which Parliament will be elected is. I feel that the references I've already cited make it quite clear that the latest possible date for the 42nd election is October 19, 2015. If you feel that you have references that advance a different point of view, then I invite you not to delete the article, but to improve it by explaining, with references, the alternate point of view.Dash77 (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

117Avenue : please do not delete the link to this article from Canadian federal election, 2011 again until the discussion for deleting the article, which you yourself have set in motion here, has run its proper course. This article, while it may or may not qualify for deletion, is clearly not a candidate for speedy deletion, and so good faith requires that the links remain active until the process is completed. Thank you.Dash77 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, silly, a factoid that can be squeezed in somewhere else, and is largely irrelevant since Canadian elections always come up well before the due date, at least during my lifetime. The fixed election date is largely meaningless, as the wiki entry itself makes clear. Hairhorn (talk) 18:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian elections usually come up sooner than legally required because the party in power usually tries to schedule the election at a time that is to their advantage, rather than sticking with the legally required latest date. Knowing the latest possible date is still important in understanding the strategy of the party in power. Only when the party in power is profoundly unpopular, and is having trouble finding a good time to call an election (eg the Mulroney/Campbell PC's in 1988-1993, when the limit was five years), will they come close to letting their mandate expire.Dash77 (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki entry notes that the law changed the maximum time period for a given Parliament to sit. It reduced the time period from five years to four years (give or take a number of months). It did not in any way change any of the events that may cause an early election and it is not my claim that it does.Dash77 (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your opinion of the matter (and it's not even clear to me that the act trumps the 5 year limit in the Constitution), there's not enough information here to justify a separate entry. Hairhorn (talk) 18:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the law didn't change the five year limit. The five year maximum is in the constitution, and can't be changed, without an amendment, requiring federal and provincial parliamentary approval. It's a matter of serious legal debate whether the four year rule has any legal weight whatsoever. And, the four year rule can be changed anytime by simple majority in parliament. No election in all of Canadian history has ever occurred on a fixed date known prior to preceding election. --Rob (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if it is truly a matter of "serious legal debate", then there should be a Wikipedia article documenting that debate that you, I, or others can edit. No one has pointed me to such an article yet. The only pointer that has been posted is the wiki entry itself, which matches my own view on the matter--that the law establishes a latest possible date, but not an earliest possible date, for the election. If there is a "serious legal debate" on the matter, then I am quite happy to delete this article and move this kind of discussion to an appropriate article--but someone should suggest an existing or new article for such a discussion. A "serious legal debate" as to the timing of elections in a democracy certainly seems noteworthy enough for a Wikipedia article, even if not THIS article.Dash77 (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The onus is always on those wishing to include a claim. You're the one who inserted the October 19, 2015 date, so it's up to you to verify it. Never, in all of Canadian history, has an election occurred on a date known prior to the preceding election. So, it is quite the novel theory to say that an election is already scheduled for October 19, 2015. I'm not trying to insert my version/understanding of the law. I'm saying because we can't verify anything concrete about this, we should scrap the whole thing. It's very dangerous when Wikipedians try to play lawyers, and interpret the law. That's why we need third party reliable sources to interpret the law for us. --Rob (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We may need to agree to disagree on this. The law is very explicit and I have documented it. I'm not sure what more you want me to do. If we want to look to precedent on Wikipedia, the analogous date of Oct 15, 2012 was used on the 41st federal election page from shortly after the creation of that page in 2008 until the GG dropped the writ on that election. No one ever documented that date or challenged it in all that time. I was asked to provide a reference and I did so. I cited the law itself. If someone wants to claim that a law is not valid, I think the onus is on them to provide some documentation. Even if we delete the article and recreate it in a few weeks' time, this issue about verifying the date presumably will come up again. So we might as well resolve it now. If you don't like the date of October 19, 2015, what date do you propose we use, and what are your reasons for saying so?Dash77 (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact we made a mistake before, is no reason to make another one. The original version of the 41st election was actually more accurate, since it correctly stated the five year limit, which is the only constitutional limit. If I had any suggestions for fixing this article, I'd have tried to fix it already. This article is not fixable. Even if the current law is constitutionally valid, it's still subject to change by a simple majority in parliament. That's something the article doesn't mention at all, which is shameful. I'd love to fix that, but my problem is there are *no* third party sources covering this topic. Rob (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not credible to simultaneously claim there is a "serious legal debate" yet there are "no third party sources". If a "serious legal debate" exists, then there will be conflicting opinions from established legal scholars, quoted in reliable third party sources. I will make an effort in the next day or two to locate such sources, although I still feel that the onus to do so is more on those who would challenge my documented claim as to the date. Again, the date issue is going to need to be resolved, deletion or not, because this article will eventually be re-created. Mentioning only the five year constitutional limit is insufficient in my view. If a law is on the books that law should be mentioned. If the law is controversial then evidence of both (all) sides of the controversy should be cited.Dash77 (talk) 21:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is not solely a matter of not repeating a past mistake, since Fixed election dates in Canada supports my take on this matter, and you haven't challenged that article. It could be argued that it is actually more important to challenge that one, because this one may be deleted anyways in the short term (even if we can agree on the date some people feel that is not enough info to justify an article), whereas Fixed election dates in Canada is an established article that is not likely to go away, and that people might draw on when they re-create this article.Dash77 (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Directly reading the law yourself, and interpreting it personally, is risky, and prone to error. It's the essence of original research. If I wanted to put my interpretation of the law in the article, then I would need to provide the 3rd party sources, but I don't. I want the article deleted. You've can cite a source for the *text* of the law, but not for your *interpretation* of it. Even if we assume the constitutionality of a compulsory four year term. You still have the fact that it's a simple piece of non-constitutional legislation, that the new parliament can amend or scrap (very possible if the Tories lose). You still have the fact there's never once been an election on a date known prior to the preceding election. If October 19, 2015 is truly a deadline, and if there is an election on that date, and this article's prediction comes true, then that will be the first time in all of Canada's history such a prediction could be made so far in advance. And, Wikipedia will have the "honour" of being the *only* major publication anywhere in the world to predict the date so early. I've Googled the date combined with key terms, and can't find any other major publication making the same prediction. Why are we the first to use this date? Why? Why? Why?--Rob (talk) 05:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "there's never once been an election on a date known prior to the preceding election", do you mean just Canadian federal elections? Because it happened in BC in 2009, and is likely to happen another two times in Canada later this year. 117Avenue (talk) 05:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob, you state "I want the article deleted". Although you are not alone in favoring the deletion of this article, most others who share your view do seem to support the re-creation of this article after the current election (May 2, 2011) is over. You *do* seem to be pretty much alone in making a big issue of the October 19, 2015 date (most others who favor deletion seem to agree with my calculation of the date but feel it is insufficient to warrant a separate article). You don't seem to realize that the date issue isn't going to go away after May 2, 2011. How do you propose dealing with this issue? You did imply in an earlier message that it would be more accurate to use the five year constitutional limit, giving a date in 2016. Googling 2016 in connection with a Canadian election (I just tried) won't produce any more results that you obtained with October 19, 2015. How do you propose to resolve this issue? With all due respect, I am growing tired of debate and want some constructive suggestions from you if you don't like my approach.Dash77 (talk) 06:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the issue will go away in the week following May 2, as third party sources will probably appear then. 117Avenue (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are already plenty of third party sources that document the "third Monday in October" timing in Canadian elections. All I've added to that is a routine calculation which is permitted under WP:OR. I doubt that the date of October 19, 2015 will be explicitly mentioned in the press, or anywhere else except Wikipedia, until we get much closer to the date.Dash77 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all we do here is delay creation, then that's good. It's always the case with major elections, there's a tendency to make them too early. If nobody objected to this one, somebody would try and make a 43rd election. There's always a push to make one more election article than what's consensus. After this upcoming election (41st), I'm confident that there'll be some 3rd party coverage of the next election (42nd). It's pretty standard, that right after one election, pundits ponder the next one, especially if there's a minority. So, we can look over the sources and see what the article should say. Here's a key thing to remember: no matter what we do with this article now, there will ultimately be an entirely new article, based on actual sources. Nothing of this current junk article will ultimately survive. All time and effort put into this article has been a total and utter waste, just as previous ones have been. There will ultimately be an article that's based on actual sources, not original research. We're just debating whether we should show your original research in the mean time. --Rob (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Nothing of this current junk article will ultimately survive." The debate about the date is what is going to survive this effort. Everything else, I would agree, is extraneous junk. And--as I've been trying to explain--there is nothing magical about May 2, 2011 that is going to change the shape of that debate. The question is ultimately going to have to be resolved: how does one deal with documenting, in Wikipedia, the date of an event which is potentially covered by law, but where the law is untested?Dash77 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party sources are the magic. They change everything. If you had them for the current content, I would support keeping this, and if the "October 19, 2015" had 3rd party sources, I would happily support it's usage. The current article has *no* 3rd party sourced statements about the 42nd election. None. Why? Because, Wikipedia is the only publisher who thinks its important enough to write about. Now, that will change. As soon as that happens, the *only* thing that will be in this article, will be what those sources say. If sources mention "October 19, 2015", it will be there (I'd even accept a primary source, if it *directly* mentioned the date). If not, it will go. It's really simple. No synthesis. You have totally misunderstand my position. My problem isn't the lack of legal test, it's lack of proper sources. I'm still waiting for you to explain why *no* sources (not even government ones) mention "October 19, 2015". I've searched hard for a source for the date of the post-2011 election. All I can find is this one, which says the "First fixed-date election to be held in 2012." Note, I will be fine with "October 19, 2015" once the proper source is provided. As a Wikipedian, I have to accept content, regardless of what I think of it, provided it's supported by proper sources. --Rob (talk) 17:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3rd party sources for the date, I just found one (The Globe and Mail) and have updated the article appropriately.Dash77 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly says "So we do not have fixed election dates." It makes clear that we can not. It sarcastically says the next one is set for October 19, 2015, but it then throws in a "not", just in case your sarcasm detector isn't working (obviously yours is not). The entire thrust of the G&M article is exactly oppostive to the point-of-view you've been pushing in this article. Yet, you won't change the Wikipedia article to fit the source, but instead wish to go the other way, by dishonestly representing what the source said. A single sentence in an opinion piece saying something is not going to happen, does not justify the creation of an article suggesting it will happen. This just shows the problem of people creating articles to early. When they finally find sources for what they're saying, they simply insert them into the old content, without trying to update it to reflect the sources. You get much better content, if you write it after finding the sources. --Rob (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to advance a point of view here. I'm trying to establish the date of the 42nd election so that we know how long the Parliament elected in the 41st election will sit. I do not care if that is done with a new article or with a brief mention on the 41st election page. The page for the 2011 Ontario election includes the following very clear, specific, verbiage: "Under amendments passed by the Legislature in 2004, Ontario elections are now held on fixed dates: the first Thursday of October every four years." Verbiage such as this, on the 41st federal election page, would be quite sufficient and would obviate any need to create the 42nd federal election page for the moment. Not sure why this is so straightforward in the Ontario case and so controversial in the federal case. The legal, constitutional, and political backdrop is the same at the provincial and federal level. The McGuinty government could pass legislation in Ontario changing the date at any time--but nobody is splitting hairs over there.Dash77 (talk) 22:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"a factoid that can be squeezed in somewhere else, and is largely irrelevant since Canadian elections always come up well before the due date, at least during my lifetime" I do not see it as an irrelevant factoid but, in fact, for me it is quite crucial in determining how to vote. My impression--and perhaps I am slightly older than you--is that a five year mandate is too long for a majority government, and such governments seem to stumble badly as they near the end of their mandate (eg Trudeau/Turner in early 1980-fall 1984; Mulroney/Campbell in 1988-1993). If I felt that the mandate was five years, I would be inclined to vote strategically to attempt to deny any party, even my own, a majority. If I felt that the mandate was only four (or so) years, I'd be more comfortable with a majority. I would never buy a car if I wasn't told whether the auto loan was a four or a five year loan. An similar uncertainty when I vote makes me equally uncomfortable, so I cannot agree that this "factoid" is irrelevant.Dash77 (talk) 16:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'd love to say WP:TOOSOON if it said stuff about future events like WP:CRYSTAL. Might as well make a 43rd, 44th, or 45th federal election article with the same speculation about dates. Nothing of relevance to be said that cannot be covered by what is already known about the Canadian electoral process.--70.80.234.196(talk) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this discussion evolves, it is becoming apparent to me that the real issue is not so much whether this article gets deleted in the short term, but documenting "what is already known about the Canadian electoral process". Originally I created this article simply to memorialize what I thought was a non-controversial statement about a date--and the issue was whether that, in and of itself, justified the creation of an article. It is becoming apparent that there is more controversy surrounding the date itself than I realized. The reason for creating the article was simply to frame the time period to be covered by the Parliament elected in the 41st election--an election that is now actively in progress. Since the 42nd election is still in the future there is no need for even a stub article for the 43rd, 44th, etc elections. If the date itself is controversial, then perhaps it is appropriate to delete this one and modify Fixed election dates in Canada. However, I would like to see those who have criticized the validity of the fixed date contribute constructively to such work, and not merely criticize the efforts of others.Dash77 (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, After we learn the results of the 2011 federal election then maybe this article should be created. Aaaccc (talk), 28 March 2011 (UTC)

• Delete, I agree I mean come on Wikipedians we have yet to learn the results of the 2011 election not to mention the 2015. Please work with me. Jessy ^T/C 00:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. This kind of thing isn't even useful as a placeholder — until we can actually say something verifiable and sourceable about it, we don't need an article about it. We don't yet know whether #41 will produce a majority government (the basic precondition for the 2015 date to actually mean squat) or a minority (which will virtually guarantee an earlier date). We don't yet know who will belong in the "Prime Minister before election" field. We don't yet know how many seats any party will or won't have; we can't yet assert even one potential election issue. Put simply, I don't understand why this, which was started literally within minutes of last Friday's confidence vote, is a top priority that needed to get rushed into place the moment #41 was in motion — between the eternal problems of monitoring for partisan spin and unelected candidates posting their campaign brochures without regard to our inclusion rules, let's concentrate on getting our coverage of this election done right before we start worrying about our article on the next one, 'k? Bearcat (talk) 18:41, 29 March 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.