Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage



This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. --Spinboy 16:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Members of the 38th Canadian Parliament and same-sex marriage
Speculation. Anything which is not speculation and is not already there, should be merged into Same-sex marriage in Canada. RickK 06:16, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, spectulation, intresting work though. --User:Boothy443 | comhrÚ 06:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Canada = notability . Delete. Speculation, and even if it were not, its encyclopedicness is highly suspect. Are we to have an article on Members of the US 136th Congress and tobacco subsidies? -R. fiend 07:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A better analogy would be an article during the Clinton impeachment debate tracking the announced voting intentions of Senators or an article on voting intentions of British MPs on the foxhunting issue (which is BIG news in the UK). Tobacco subsidies are not a national issue dominating debate in the US, the same sex marriage issue is a national issue in Canada (and indeed has attracted significant attention in the US) and is dominating the front page. I think the move to delete this is yet another example of the Americentrism of various US based wikipedians. If it's not to do with the US then it's deletable.AndyL 18:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I object to Andy's attempt to paint me as Americacentric on the basis of this nomination. As I indicated, the reason why this should be deleted is because it is speculative, it has nothing to do with the lack of notability of the subject, because I DO NOT believe that the subject is not notable.  Note that I didn't say to delete Same-sex marriage in Canada.  THIS article, as it stands, is nothing more than opinion, because the votes have not been cast.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * OK then, where is this phantom article on the 105th US Congress and the Clinton Impeachment? Is there one? If not, then that analogy sucks too. Looks like this article is another example of Canadian centrism of various Canada based wikipedians, who have also been writing articles on everyone who holds a local public office in the Toronto area (where are the ones for New York City?) among other things. And why isn't this information in the article on same-sex marriage in Canada? -R. fiend 19:23, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Even though I live in Toronto, I didn't particularly support having articles on individual Toronto city councillors (except ones who are notable for other reasons), but the fact is that the ones that were nominated for deletion legitimately survived the votes. And it wasn't because they were Canadian; it was because there is some support, like it or not, for the notion that city councillors do merit articles. The idea that Canadian-centrism is something that needs to be fought against is utterly absurd; in reality, Canadian subjects on VfD are regularly forced to meet a higher standard of notability than equivalent articles from the United States. If you believe that city councillors don't generally deserve encyclopedia articles, that's one thing (and one I'd actually agree with you on), but let's get the issue straight: nobody's expecting special treatment for Canadian topics; we Canadians expect our topics to be given equal consideration. And there are American cities for whom people have written articles on councillors, even if New York isn't one of them. I don't agree with it, but they do seem to survive VfD often enough. Bearcat 03:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this takes a lot of work to do of which mulitple sources are used. A poll is never accurate, does this mean we should never poll? C'mon be fair guys.
 * Above vote by 209.217.83.14 (talk &bull; contribs) -- Curps 07:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, a fair amount of work, I'd really hesitate to just sweep it aside. The Canadian parliamentary vote will happen later this year, and after that the speculation and/or research will be likely be removed and only the record of the vote will remain.  Maybe we could afford to bend the rules here if necessary and let this article live on in its present form for a few more months, given that the final version of this page after the vote will be more encyclopedic. -- Curps 07:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously Earl Andrew 07:56, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Radiant! 09:23, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but with reservations, Article needs cleanup. Megan1967 09:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, could use more work, but an interesting start. It would probably only make sense to keep it if it were regularly updated with more information. Also - pretty tables. :) RidG (talk)  09:56, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is very regularly updated, look at the edit history ;) - Jord 13:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Canadian-Parliamentcruft. Is there any kind of cruft that WP hasn't got? Miss Pippa 11:59, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep for the moment. Significant topic, verifiable. Kappa 12:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * How can you verify what somebody might do in the future? RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge. I admit that I too had reservations when I first saw this page but it is a highly topical issue in Canada today.  Perhaps, now that the bill has been introduced in the House (and therefore has a name) this should be merged with Bill C-38. - Jord 13:51, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Stong Keep. This is not speculation: it is based on the public statements of the MPs as to how they will vote, so it is verifable. It should be merged once the vote is taken. Kevintoronto 13:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a very useful page performing a valuable service.  Somehow we get a lot of comments on VfD talking about how since WP isn't on paper, we can afford to have this video game character or that stretch of road, but when something comes up that actually untilizes our online, wiki nature, it's VfD'd and derided as cruft.  This is a good use of Wikipedia and ought to be encouraged.  Remes 15:16, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is cruft. The subject is valid.  THIS article is opinion and prediction.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete it's about an interesting and important subject, and obviously very well researched, but, I'm sorry, I just don't think that speculation about how someone might vote belongs in an encyclopledia. Encyclopedias are all about facts, and this is just well-researched guesswork. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  16:07, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to point out, Andrew, that you voted to "keep" Votes for deletion/Great Jedi Purge, a battle in Star Wars. Star Wars is -- and I hesitate to risk the wrath of geeks everywhere (including my spouse) -- fiction, not fact. This page is an important comment on a major issue in Canada. In a short few months, the vote will have been taken, and this page will be updated to reflect it. Kevintoronto 14:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Apples. Oranges.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Aye, I don't really see how the two can be compared. There's a big difference between fiction and speculation, and I doubt that even the most hardcore deletionist would say that we need to remove all fiction from Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:26, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting that fiction should be removed from Wikipedia. I am only pointing out that because there is room on Wikipedia for buckets of articles on fictional characters and events that people are interested in, there should also be room for an article about a hugely important and controversial and real issue in Canada that a lot of people are interested in. The issue will soon be resolved and this page will be quickly and easily converted to a record of the vote. As noted, the article focuses on the verifiable, publicly-stated positions of the MPs. Speculation has been discouraged and reverted, as watchers of this page well know. And in response to RickK's stunning logic ("Apples. Oranges."), no, it isn't. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation. The problem is not cruftiness, it's verifiability. Wait for the vote to occur, then there's no need to gauge likelihood. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The point is that this article has been prepared using public statements of MPs, so it is verifiable, and not speculation. Where speculation is used, it should be removed, just as with any other article. One or two bits of stray specualtion in an otherwise useful and frequently viewed article should not be grounds for deletion, but rather for editing.
 * And by the way, there are 178 articles in the Category "Star Trek characters". Apparently there is room for them, why is there no room for this article? Kevintoronto 17:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Those articles can be verified. This cannot.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that not even MPs have the ability to predict the future. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And there are 60 articles and 17 subcategories in the Star Wars category. Just one of those seventeen sub-categories, "Star Wars characters" has 38 articles, plus an additional 78 articles in 6 sub-categories. And this is about something that is fictional! Canada, and its debate over same-sex marriage, is real. How can you be so upset about something that you call "speculative", when there is so much room taken up by fiction? Do we need more space for another sci-fi character who was on screen for 8 seconds in a movie made in 1975? Kevintoronto 16:16, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Fiction is not speculative. Those articles can be verified.  This cannot.  Note that I do not support the creation of all of those mini-articles, either, but the vote has already been lost there.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep. You can verify the publicly-stated voting intentions of MPs by reading their statements in the Canadian media or on other website that are documenting those statements, such as www.marriagevote.ca. Or you can call their offices. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. Will we have these lists for every issue for every incarnation of every legislative body in every country?  Will enough people be willing to maintain them? Stances on issues can be included in the articles of individual legislators. Gamaliel 17:57, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * "Will we have these lists for every issue?" No, only those that people are interested in writing about, just as there are articles on small towns that people are interested in writing about, but not about every small town in the world. Kevintoronto 18:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not speculation in that various surveys of MPs have been published in the press and numerous MPs have gone on the record on the issue, that makes this list far less speculative than public opinion polls which we keep track of during election campaigns. This is a big issue in Canada and the issue is topical. May be worth revisiting some time after the vote is taken but keep for now. AndyL 18:54, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - SoM 20:08, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean-up. Even if it just a template for the future votes. Right now it may just be speculation, but when the vote passes this article will become an important reference for the future. - Sepper 20:13, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * And then it will be a valid article. RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then develop the article in user space and move it to the main encyclopedia space after the vote is taken. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:32, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep There are 178 articles on Star Trek characters, we can certainly keep this one. --Spinboy 20:21, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Apples. Oranges.  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge into Same-sex marriage in Canada. Martg76 20:48, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - User:Fred A very interesting article that I refer to often. It is not speculation, because the MPs' likely votes are taken from sources such as their published statements on the subject.
 * Above vote by 137.207.106.51 (talk &middot; contributions) Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 22:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep I update this page often, and the vast majority of them that are speculation are listed as undecided. An MP can always change their mind without us knowing. That's why we have things called projected polls for example.
 * Above vote by 134.117.40.252 (talk &middot; contributions) Smoddy (t) (e) (g) 22:07, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * We have projected polls? On Wikipedia?  Where?  RickK 20:36, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - original research. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 00:50, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I have to note that when Ontario passed a bill within the past couple of weeks to bring provincial laws which made reference to marriage into accordance with the court decisions, there was some controversy specifically around the fact that it wasn't a recorded vote. People do seem to want to know how each individual politician votes on this. I'm not sure I agree that it needs to be a separate page from Same-sex marriage in Canada, but it's not original research or speculation, either. It's quite clearly based as much as possible on actual public record, the relatively few assumptions in the article are perfectly solid ones (I'm gay and Canadian, so trust me, I know what's a reasonable assumption on this topic, and there isn't a single bit of speculation in here that isn't supportable.) For that matter, final reading of the bill is only a few weeks away, so the article will be entirely documented fact in short order. Keep or merge into the main SSM article. Bearcat 04:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep This is a page I visit lots of times when I am on here, don't delete this. Jack Cox 18:23, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation until actual vote takes place. kaal 05:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Until the vote occurs this is speculative. The government could even fall before this is voted on. This would be more appropriately tracked on a userpage and then streamlined and merged with Same-sex marriage in Canada. All that aside, wow, that's one heck of a table, and a tonne of work digging up all the data. - NormanEinstein 18:47, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation on how the members might vote? Not encyclopedic. The topic of same sex marriage in Canada is already well covered in wikipedia. DaveTheRed 21:20, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have found this article very useful in getting updates on the position of MPs on the vote, and it really helps to have all the MPs positions all on one page. I find it very informative. It also helps to have a table to add up all the current votes of in favour and against. Having each MPs position on their own page would make adding up the totals very difficut and cumbersome. Also, articles on current events are allowed on Wikipedia, which is what this is. Current event articles can often be based on a certain amount of specualation. In fact, I would even argue that even the most encyclopedic articles may have a small amount of speccualtion in them. A little bit of specualtion should not discount and invalidate an entire article that is very informative and useful. Also note that indeed it is not complete specualtion, and is largely based on MPs acutal statements and positions. Brenj 21:43, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This isn't speculation, it's a repository of verifiable information taken from public statements.  If some sections of the page are speculative, the solution is to change them -- not to delete the entire thing.  (In fact, I see that someone has recently corrected the page's speculative elements.)  CJCurrie 00:17, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * KeepBut, remove unconfirmed reports.Habsfannova 02:45, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cleanup. The article, at its heart, is a record of MPs' stances on same-sex marriage and specfically Bill C-38, which has been drafted and does exist, which distinguishes this legislation from a hypothetical bill about tobacco lawsuits. Any information based on published reports of MPs' stances is not speculation. The comments and prognostications based on an MP's constituency, however, are ill-founded and the MPs in question should be listed as unknown in the absence of any verifiable statements. The Senate vote portion of the article is largely empty and should be done away with. Ianking 04:10, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * A proposal: this issue is taking up way too much time and energy. How about a 90-day moratorium on this question to give everyone a chance to think it over, at the end of which we can have a simple Keep/delete/merge vote? Kevintoronto 15:23, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good idea. --Spinboy 17:03, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Very informative article. The page's format is very well done. If you really want to use the word "speculation," then consider it speculation based on reliable sources. The "Crystal Ball" analogy insinuates that the sources are questionable/poor/etc. Sure, MPs can change their votes at the last minute, but is that argument good enough to invalidate all this data? I don't think so. —Mar·ka·ci: 2005-03-12 01:36 Z
 * Delete. It's speculation. Completely unencyclopedic...and please don't confuse the issue of same sex marriage with whether or not this is encyclopedic. --Woohookitty 01:43, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't see anyone on this page having such confusion. The topic of the vote in parliament is completely immaterial (or should be) to the question of whether an article like this is appropriate for Wikipedia. Remes 17:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Some "speculation" by reliable sources and some verifiable data.  Other speculation should be removed; however, data used for the speculation should be retained. &mdash;UTSRelativity 04:02, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously a lot of work went into this article, and it is very informative/interesting. If the MPs' opinions are verifiable through press articles and other published reports, then it is not speculation. I would say though that the MPs whose stances on the issue are unknown/unverifiable should be listed as "unknown" rather than assuming that they would vote along party lines or the view held by their constituents. Darkcore 10:09, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm of the view that this will be of negligible historical interest once the whole thing is settled. Lacrimosus 22:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete Reads like a historical investigation of the dubious future. An encyclopedia should include information about the 38th Canadian Parliament and about same sex marriage, and the reader should be left to draw his own conclusions. Halidecyphon 06:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the Wikibooks Voter's Guide, which is the perfect home for something like this. Tuf-Kat 22:36, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Well there we have it. Glad to know there's a place for things like this. Halidecyphon 06:31, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Will be be transwiki'ing all election/political related martial then to this Voter's Guide? Where's the line that says what we do or don't transwiki? --Spinboy 16:58, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Anybody can transwiki anything, as long as the history is intact. What happens to it after transwikiing (both here and at the Voter's Guide) is subject to the ordinary rules of consensus. Tuf-Kat
 * Strong delete. Since when is the mere amount of work or craft in creating an article a factor either way on VfD?  This is still obvious and speculative politicruft.  Nothing against Canada here, as you can just as easily do the same thing for any major upcoming vote in the US Congress, the UK Parliament, the German Bundestag, the Japanese Diet, the Icelandic Althing, etc.  Edeans 19:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, and if there's a particularly important vote in the Althing and someone wants to compile a similar page, I say, more power to 'em. The fact that this is an exercise that could be repeated in no way suggests that it shouldn't be allowed now or in the future.  Remes 17:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. This is pure speculation. It would make for a good newspaper article, but an encyclopedia is about facts, i.e. past events. UnHoly 21:23, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Maybe I am biased as a Canadian, but I think this article is quite useful. I am following this issue very closely. TheArmadillo 02:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I find this artical to be both encyclopedic, and verifiable, as it is a compilation based on comments regarding their stances made by the MPs themselves. Cdernings 20:20, 18 Mar 2005
 * Keep - a good and useful article. - SimonP 18:25, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Useful & valuable now; even more so in the future ("But how did Parliament, the parties and MP's feel about it?") RsrchBoy 23:36, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - Interesting compilation of public statements by MP's -- Webgeer 06:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - While a few contributors have been loose with including verifiable information (ie, so-and-so is from a rural district so they will likely vote yyy) the vast majority has been compiled legitimately from a pan-Canadian selection of information that would be impossible to do anywhere on the net except for Wikipedia. There could be more sourcing, yes, but this vote will be the biggest news story of the year here in Canada.  Let's not deride it as cruft.  Sidenote: Everyone saying merge into Bill C-38 or Same-sex marriage in Canada... well, these tables would be there, but that would put both pages way over the size limit.  Think of this as a spinoff article on account of size limitations alone. -The Tom 17:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - based on publically stated intentions of politicians; Also, as The Tom said, it would make any article it was merged with too long IMO. Dunro 10:06, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was in there reverting vandalism and noticed that this article is already really big, beyond the recommended article size. Not that it should be made shorter, but it certainly shouldn't be merged. --Spinboy 16:42, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This page is very similar to the "future election campaign" pages that this website currently has. It might seem like speculation but it is still reporting facts and not opinions. Speculation would involve having a lot of opinions, but this article only has facts. Wiki Contributor 19:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.