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 draftify. It is clear that outright deletion is off the table, and the question is whether to keep the article in main space, or move it to draft space to be worked upon. People on the "keep" side have, validly, pointed out that an article may be appropriate even if the election has not being called yet. While the exact date is not decided, it must happen before the end of September 2025. However, the issues articulated by e.g. Teraplane that the article is not mature enough yet for mainspace is valid. For the vast majority of races, candidates have not yet been decided, and so the tables in the article are filled up with "TBD". That makes the current page much more of a placeholder than an encyclopedia article. People who are disappointed in the result here may take solace that the situation here is temporary, and that the page will inevitably move back to mainspace once nominations begin in earnest. Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No election has been called. No writs have been issued. No candidates have been confirmed by the AEC. Just as with the previous AfD we currently have a article with tables which are mostly empty and a blazingly-bright WP:CRYSTAL-ball of an article. This should once again be Draftifyd and page protected applied to ensure that creation only occurs through AfC when appropriate and not before. TarnishedPathtalk 11:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily draftify: None of the grounds which were suggested in the previous AfD for this article to come out of draftspace have been fulfilled, so it having been moved out of draftspace is spurious. The article continues to consist of empty tables. Furthermore, arguments articulated in the last AfD that this article requires sporadic contributions from a range of editors and thus needs to be in the mainspace have been disproven, as the article has been kept completely up-to-date in draftspace. There is already consensus that this article should be in draftspace. The grounds given that there is now "sufficient content" compared to when it was moved into draftspace are not correct. Also agree with protecting the page as suggested above. J2m5 (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on the editorial commitments that have emerged from this discussion, I'm changing my opinion to "keep," as of what has been discussed on 20 April. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep This is a spurious deletion proposal. An election being called or candidates being confirmed by election authorities has never been a requirement for either a candidate list article, or to add candidates as content to articles. For comparison, the 2022 candidates article was created 13 months before the 2022 election was held, and it is currently 13 months before the next election is due. Candidates in the next United Kingdom general election was created 19 months before the election is due. Candidates for the 2024 United States House of Representatives election were added as early as November 2022.
The opening comment is a complete misuse of WP:CRYSTAL, which prohibits articles and content on unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions. CRYSTAL also states Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...] Examples of appropriate topics include the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2032 Summer Olympics. An Australian federal election occurring by 2025 is most certainly expected to take place, and not an unverified speculation, rumour or presumption. The candidates for the next Australian election are as notable as the candidates for the last election, and their candidacy is reported by reliable sources, as notability and reliable sources being the key policies in establishing articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument that should be used in deletion discussions. You argued that WP:CRYSTAL was misused in the last AfD discussion, it didn't pass the sniff test then and it doesn't pass the sniff test now. TarnishedPathtalk 14:13, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "passing the sniff test" is? ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about not having tables which are almost completely empty as a start? You mention below that the size off the article has grown by 60% since the last AfD. However, a 60% increase in data from the previous state where the tables where almost completely empty has still left the article in a state where the tables are almost completely empty. TarnishedPathtalk 08:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the tables which are almost completely empty were removed, would you support keeping the article? I am not aware of any policy against empty tables necessitating deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article which claims to be "Candidates of the next Australian federal election" which doesn't even know who almost all those candidates are is clearly not ready for mainspace. TarnishedPathtalk 11:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article includes all, or almost all, of the declared candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That says all we need to know! J2m5 (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
speedy draftify and a barrage of trout for the promoter to mainspace for simply ignoring the previous AfD, perhaps in hope that we wouldn't notice o something.Nothing significant has changed which would invalidate the previous outcome. Mangoe (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy draftify: An important article but not ready for mainspace yet. --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The size of the article has increased by 60% since the AfD was closed and there are twice as many inline citations. This reflects the ongoing reporting by major media outlets of preselection contests and outcomes. The election is due by May 2025, which is barely over a year away, and could easily be held sooner. What exactly is the bright line that "delete" votes are expecting the article to cross before it is fit for mainspace – is it a particular date? A particular proportion of electorates with confirmed candidates? The argument raised again in this AfD – that no one is actually a candidate for an election until the nominations officially close – is just plain wrong and has no evidence to support it. ITBF (talk) 08:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is literally close to empty. An excellent time to move it to mainspace is when there are a fair number of non-incumbent candidates announced, or incumbents confirmed. I think it is untenable to have blank tables in any published article in context of WP:WHITE. J2m5 (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, judging article development by byte size rather than, eg, the amount of information in the article, is not a valid means of testing for whether the article should be created. The number and complexity of tables in an article — the main contributor to the article's increase in size — is not to my knowledge a factor in AfD. J2m5 (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can simply remove the empty tables for now, or we can put placeholder values in the cells. This isn't a problem that requires deleting the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really struggle to see the point of an article if most of it is blank! No one is suggesting to delete the article, just that it be moved to draftspace until it is more complete. J2m5 (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. It doesn't exactly portray a good impression to readers if they bring up Wikipedia pages which are mostly blank. It's not like the election is imminent. TarnishedPathtalk 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip, did you really believe replacing empty cells with TBD addressed any concern? TarnishedPathtalk 07:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It addresses the concern around "whitespace". Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely has not. The cells are still effectively blank. It also in my opinion suggests that those parties will nominate a candidate in every district, which violates WP:CRYSTAL. J2m5 (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think the last AfD was necessarily correct, either - an election does not need to be called for this to be a valid article. I'd strongly oppose any draftification. SportingFlyerT·C 00:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by the fact all of the draftify votes are discussing editing issues, not notability issues. There will be a next election, and there are candidates for it. SportingFlyerT·C 00:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to J2m5 !vote above. This should not have been brought out of draft given the previous AfD discussion and the state it was in and continues to be in. I was having a hard time deciding whether to CSD G4 this or nominate for AfD when I saw this was pushed to mainspace again. It should simply not be here given established consensus. TarnishedPathtalk 01:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been elaborated what the supposed problems with the article is. Articles for upcoming elections are expressly allowed by the WP:CRYSTAL policy. If this article includes all the candidates that reliable sources confirm to be candidates, then what exactly are the problems with the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming election? So we have a date then? It could be this year or it could be next year. No one knows.
As mentioned above we have table entries in electorates for parties where there is no indication that those parties will field candidates. There will also be redistributions between now and then. This is well and truly WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPathtalk 08:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources overwhelmingly support that there is an upcoming election. I removed the columns for parties which may not be fielding candidates in those electorates, so the tables now only have columns for parties where they are contesting all or most of the electorate, consistent with the articles for previous elections. And again, WP:CRYSTAL explicitly exempts these kinds of future election articles, because they concern events with a very high degree of certainty occurring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Upcoming? So is it this year or next year? Also, you've not addressed the fact that you have rows for electorates that will not exist at the next election. You also don't know who the candidates are for most of the electorates (Hensel TBD fills most of the article). Obviously WP:CRYSTAL. TarnishedPathtalk 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there is not a specific date does not mean WP:CRYSTAL is violated. The TBD issue is an editing issue, not a notability issue. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. That's already the case here. SportingFlyerT·C 16:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as the encyclopedia is not a crystal ball. Speedy draftify is not recommended. Toadette(Let's talk together!) 16:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: per nomination, all arguments from original deletion still hold. Blank cells have been converted to TBD (where much of the size increase comes from, but still hold no information. The few pre-selected candidates are still over 90% from one party, so this article really has a very samll primary audience of party members. Some lower house seats will be removed and possibly some added due to a redistribution. Another indicator of how premature this page is. Teraplane (talk) 06:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any potential closer should note that the proposer of this discussion notified the participants of the previous deletion discussion, which can be considered canvassing, given the outcome of that discussion. The discussion should be held open for long enough to consider broader views, and I intend to notify the Australian politics editor noticeboards. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:APPNOTE notifying all editors "who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic" is appropriate. TarnishedPathtalk 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All contributors to that discussion were notified, including those for and against, so the view that it was canvassing to do that is not correct. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It can be a relatively covert form of canvassing if they are doing so with the awareness that the people being notified are overall likely to support a particular view. I assume good faith in this particular instance, it's simply something that a closer would want to consider.
Also, nobody reads those WikiProject "article alerts", and that deletion sorting has a very narrow audience. I will make more visible notifications for the relevant editing community. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was absolutely nothing covert about my notifying editors who were involved in the previous discussion. I was open and transparent about what I was doing. Per no one readying those article alerts, where do you think I got the links from? I watch them sporadically. TarnishedPathtalk 07:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To the closer– the outcome of the previous deletion discussion was that this be moved to draftspace, which it was. If the outcome of this discussion is "no consensus," then the article should be moved back into draftspace as it was before, because the existing (and still standing) consensus is that the article should be in draftspace. Having "no consensus" to a second AfD after the first AfD was draftify should mean that the article should remain a draft. Rather than going through the AfC process, which is standard for drafts which have been created through an AfD, editors unilaterally published the article without AfC, meaning this AfD has essentially been an AfC – and if an AfC has "no consensus," then status quo prevails and it remains a draft. J2m5 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely in this case - the last AfD only had five editors supporting deletion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result of the last AfD, conducted within Wikipedia's guidelines, resulted in draftify. J2m5 (talk) 12:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, I mean that only five editors in the last AfD supported either deletion or draftifying. Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: also, the pre-selection ballot section has crept back on to htis article. These are of even less relevance and harder to find references for, was dealt with in this AfD: https://w.wiki/9jVo . Teraplane (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have now alerted editors to this discussion on the Next Australian federal election talk page and on the relevant WikiProject talk page. The discussion should remain open to consider their opinions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless a snap election is called, there will be many more nominations in the coming months, so why would you waste time for a deletion discussion whereas it more information rolling in the coming months. The next election is not too far away and their announced candidates are not rumours.Villian Factman (talk) 06:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The intention to draftify is to wait until those nominations come. J2m5 (talk) 12:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an extreme view which is very unsupported. These types of articles start months before the elections themselves start. The article isn't "Nominations of the next Australian federal election". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry -- I should have used the word "announcements" not nominations. I support the article existing well before the actual noms open. J2m5 (talk) 03:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Announced candidates? Is that why the tables in this article are full of TBD? TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article contains the confirmed (by reliable sources) candidates for the next election, which can be considered interchangeable with "announced". Onetwothreeip (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the TBDs then? This is obviously not ready for mainspace given the number of TBDs. TarnishedPathtalk 14:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's an editing issue, not a notability issue. Something is ready for mainspace if it's notable. No one is arguing it's not, apart from a mis-application of WP:CRYSTAL. And notable articles can be in poor shape, like this one. SportingFlyerT·C 16:41, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that it is permanently in poor shape no matter how much "editing" goes on until more candidates announce their candidacies in the near future. J2m5 (talk) 03:38, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where could that possibly be coming from? Wikipedia's policies absolutely promote the existence of small articles, as that is how they grow into larger articles. They do not need to be incubated to full size in draft space before publishing. It might even be larger and more verifiable than what would be considered WP:STUB, currently having 44 references. A stub is an article deemed too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject. So even if this was too short or incomplete, that wouldn't justify removal from article space. The article on the year 2024 was created in 2002; it's not a draft waiting to be published on 31 December. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been trying to think of ways to bring this discussion to a consensus. I think it is evident that the subject of the article is notable, and where the main point of disagreement is is the general ugliness/emptiness of the article (which is a valid reason for draftifying an article until the article starts filling up). As editors, we need to come to WP:CONSENSUS rather than have this go to some sort of vote, which is not ideal. I have created User:J2m5/draft6 (unfinished) as an idea for how to dramatically reduce the amount of whitespace/emptiness in the article while clearly and effectively communicating the currently announced candidates. Please let me know what you all think of this way forward. J2m5 (talk) 03:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is what this article should look like for now. SportingFlyerT·C 03:52, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would only be temporary until the tables are fuller. J2m5 (talk) 04:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent proposal @J2m5, I think it shows all the important information without claiming to predict anything else. My vote(?) is to change the article to this version, and then Keep. GraziePrego (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I very much like this idea but I would like to modify it further before I support it. We could keep the tables but remove (or hide) the rows for electorates which have no declared candidates, for example. This should be discussed and approved on the article talk page, but I commend the ingenuity. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't support an article where there are table rows for divisions with only one candidate announced per division, with columns for each party. It may also be misinterpreted if there are divisions missing. Rather than dot points there could be tables with division names in column A and a bullet point list of announced candidates so far (making clear the list is provisional) in column B. That format would result in far fewer empty cells and would also not engage in predicting that One Nation or the UAP will nominate candidates in particular states and territories. J2m5 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Prose for "No candidates have yet been announced for the electorates of Wikipedia, Miscellania, ..." could be used. 2) I would support removing the columns for One Nation and UAP until they start announcing candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we are in agreement. After the AfD I will be removing the preselections section and if necessary initiating discussion about it on the talk page, but that is not relevant to the AfD itself. J2m5 (talk) 09:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article looking like that would need an entirely different name. Clearly it's not 'Candidates of the next Australian federal election'. That's a list of retiring members and current members, completely different article. TarnishedPathtalk 00:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean – majority of the candidates in the given draft are non-incumbents? J2m5 (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I should have written retirements and currently preselected candidates. TarnishedPathtalk 09:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates are by definition preselected, so that is redundant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 11:13, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these are editing complaints, not notability complaints. SportingFlyerT·C 01:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the only factor in AfD... an article substantially being or appearing to be unfinished is entirely valid grounds for an article to be moved to draftspace. J2m5 (talk) 09:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDFORMAT suggests contributors do not make recommendations on the course of action to be taken that are not sustained by arguments (ie, "voting" without giving reasoning). J2m5 (talk) 05:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguilltalk 13:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For Pete's sake. There's nothing crystal-ball about whether the election is happening or not. All of Wikipedia is a work in progress. We can have this article in mainspace, where it will help some readers and annoy some editors, or we can have it in draftspace, where it will help no one and annoy everyone. Let it breathe. It doesn't have to be perfect. -- asilvering (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think other editors have argued that the crystal ball is whether certain candidates and parties will nominate or not, not whether the election will happen at all. I think explicitly aiming for an outcome that will 'annoy some editors' is not conductive of the aim of WP:CONSENSUS. J2m5 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@J2m5, the alternative I see here is "help no one and annoy everyone", which is clearly worse. You're currently working on a version of the article that does not contain tables (and thus hopefully annoy even fewer people), which is great. It is entirely in line with my keep !vote. -- asilvering (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Next Australian federal election Thank you J2m5 for your excellent draft presenting candidates in a much more concise and readable format User:J2m5/draft6 . I suggest the best approach is to take this draft and merge it with Next Australian federal election. This page already contains sectionson the redistribution and retiring members. So adding a simple list of seats that have declared candidate/s (just one line per seat) would convey the known pre-selected candidates and avoid all the issues of too many empty results. Teraplane (talk) 08:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nomination Samoht27 (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
