Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilean presidential election, 2013


 * 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   keep. The majority of the deletion !votes were based on the speculation in the earlier version. Removing the speculation would seem to address those concerns. For future reference, it might be better to try and address a content issue on the talk page before nominating for AfD. Ged UK  15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Chilean presidential election, 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * WP:CRYSTAL: Candidates in Chile do not usually announce they will be running until a year prior to elections, thus this is extremely premature; especially considering Chile completed the 2009-2010 elections this past Sunday, Jan. 17th.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Disagreed, does not meet WP:CRYSTAL criteria (see #1 under "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball"). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Partially agreed, though that is no basis for deletion. There are candidates that campaign much earlier than one year before the election (i.e. Sebastián Piñera). Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To make a list of candidates three years in advance is a stretch. I do not have an issue with the topic of elections, (Actually, I do have an issue, considering there is nothing more than an event date that can be added at this time.) ...however the subtopic of including candidates is not prudent. The articles seems more of a list of assumed candidates than a topic on electoral process. If it is not deleted, it may grow to mimic the current elections article, which would be a grave distortion of the truth. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to the WP:Crystal, it clearly states Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. To say there will be elecetions is highly probable.  To say who those candidates might be is not.  --Neon Sky (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:Verifiability: There are currently no sources or press to support this,
 * Comment - Disagreed Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV: Four of the five candidates you list and link to are center-leftist,
 * Comment - Disagreed. It's just that that there are more candidates from the left than there are from the right. It simply reflects the reality of Chilean politics nowadays. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a political shift in the country right now. Pinera has to form his office, the country is going to enter a significant transition; elementary political science here. As for there being right-wing notables, there are; however if I name them I would be subscribing to your logic and I just don't agree we can speculate three years in advance.  Anything can happen. --Neon Sky (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no content other than a generic infobox and internal links to politicans.
 * Comment - Agreed. Article could be improved. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am new to Wiki and this is my first time requesting a deletion so if I did something wrong or am missing information, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks. Neon Sky (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The above is dialogue between the author and person contesting article. Please vote below the line.  This will help avoid confusion. Thank you. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  02:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  02:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the community believes this should be deleted as premature, I wouldn't contest it. Pristino (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagreed —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baf09 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete All that's in here is a list of "potential candidates", which is WP:CRYSTALBALL at its very worst. To put it in perspective, the most recent presidential election in Chile was only six weeks ago (December 12, 2009) -- and the runoff election between the two top candidates was this past Sunday  January 17, 2010).  Mandsford (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd add that people who have written "agreed" might want to instead say "delete" (i.e., they agree that it should be deleted) and those who say "disagreed" might want to write "keep" (i.e., they disagree that it should be deleted), and that a reason should be given. Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment No one has written agreed, it's Pristino, the author of the article in question who is agreeing or disagreeing with the critiques. --Neon Sky (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early as Mandsford noted.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Just to make it simpler to follow, I've taken the liberty of prefacing comments as comments. In addition, bold print, like ALL CAPS,  should be avoided, is.  One can put a comment in italics for emphasis.  Although it's not really a vote (and we use the odd term "!vote" for that purpose) I'm assuming that Neon, as nominator, would say "Delete" and that Pristino, as the article's creator, would say "Keep"; and that if I interpret Pristino's agreed comments correctly, it's more along the line of "Si, pero..." or "Yes, but...", something along the lines of "the article should be improved instead of deleted".  Note that if you've posted without being logged in, it shows up as an IP address number and not a name; and that if you say "keep" or "delete", it helps to explain why you feel that way.  Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, as nominator.--Neon Sky (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is going to be odd for me, but I'm leaning in the direction of keeping the article but keeping a close eye on it.  We've usually have articles for the "Next [insert country here] general election"...this tends to be common enough that I'd call it a convention of sorts (there's already an article for the next German federal election, for example); it's not like we're listing the 2021 elections on here, after all.  With that said, I do think that if an article is to be kept, then candidate listings need to be kept under control.  The article offers no sources for these candidates being "potential" candidates, and that is something that needs to be watched carefully to prevent abuse of Wikipedia by political groups attempting to gain free publicity/notoriety.Tyrenon (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Ok, I've stripped out the candidate speculation and I'll do my best to keep an eye on this one.  Right now, it's just listing a date and it could use a source or two on the dates (I'll tag it as needing sources), but it's no less speculative than the one on Germany...or, for that matter, the detailed article on the 2014 US Senate elections.  Even if we're just saying when elections would legally be scheduled for, I think a stub on this point is well within what belongs on Wikipedia.Tyrenon (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment: Relisted as needing more discussion after being stubbed by Tyrenon.  Sandstein   05:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as stub (the election is notable, it's the next one, and this is what we know about it so far) with only sourced, factual statements of interest, candidacy or other relevance as they come in. Galatee (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.