Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ottawa municipal election, 2006


 * 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was KEEP.  Rob e  rt  15:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ottawa municipal election, 2006
Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Delete -- Spinboy 23:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't origional research. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 23:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep of couse. Just like any future election. And tell me what part is original research? Everything can be sourced. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Possible mayoral candidates is original research, not all of those have announced they are running. The published poll is out of date with no source as well. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 23:46, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The list of candidates comes from the poll. I will try to find a source for the poll. -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the poll, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 23:54, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The poll is actually sourced. It says very clearly it's in the April 30th Ottawa Sun. Go look it up. There is nothing on this page that makes predictions, so I dont see how it is a "crystal ball". -- Earl Andrew - talk 23:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You should have provided a link, I still maintain my nom. --[[Image:Ottawa flag.png|20px]] Spinboy 00:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You don't have to link every source, as long as there is a source. Not everything is on the internet, you know. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:13, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, contains verifiable and important information. Kappa 23:45, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep based on what WP:NOT actually says, and what it gives as an example.   --rob 00:03, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Added comment: I would like hear why someone thinks this is more "crystal ball" or "original research" than U.S. presidential election, 2008 which is used as an "appropriate" example in WP:NOT.   Info about a 2006 event seems even more predictable than a 2008 event.  Also, there is far more speculation in the US/2008 article.  Obviously, a municipal election is less "notable" than a national one, but I haven't heard that as a reason for the nomination.  Here's a quote from that US/2008 article "Vince McMahon, owner and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, appeared on his 2005 SummerSlam event in a Presidential limo with a McMahon for President banner although it may have been simply a humorous sketch given the event's location in Washington, DC.".  It seems both articles can use improvement, but both are easy keeps also.  --rob 01:54, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa -The Tom 00:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup as there is verifiable information to go into the article such as the boundaries commission. Candidates should be added when they either announce their candidature (preferable) or as potential candidates when there is speculation. Capitalistroadster 01:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep CJCurrie 01:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per rob -- this is the sort of thing that Wikipedia can do particularly well &mdash; mendel &#9742; 04:34, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Verifiable and of current interest. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. does not say we do not cover future events. I improved it, but it probably needs a less provocative name. At the moment its main effect is probably to create frustration by giving people hope that doomed nominations have a chance of passing. CalJW 15:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, eh as per above. Spinboy, ya hoser! Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep & comment I would like to express regret concerning the above hoser comment. It was not meant as an attack on Spinboy.  It was meant to be a tongue-in-cheek reference to Bob & Doug McKenzie and all things lovingly Canadian.  Next time, I'll keep my sense of humor to myself. Roodog2k  (Hello there!) 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Might as well get the perfunctories out of the way ... :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, as per the various above comments. --GrantNeufeld 00:22, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article expressing what's known or widely perceived about a future election isn't being a "crystal ball", it's being a resource for information about that election, which will get duly updated as more specifics become known. We already have 39th Canadian federal election. We already have United States presidential election, 2008. Both of those are valid articles. This, too, is perfectly valid (albeit on a smaller scale, but we've done municipal election coverage before). If the article were predicting a winner, in advance of even knowing who the official candidates will be, then "crystal ball" would be a valid argument. As the article stands, however, it's just a snapshot of how a campaign that's only a year away is beginning to shape up (and how else would I have learned that Alex Munter is currently the voting public's first choice for the mayoralty?) Keep it. Bearcat 18:28, 21 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.