Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Results of the Canadian federal 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 in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was WITHDRAWN by nominator; apparently Results pages are indeed supported by precedent. My apologies. I'm still opposed to carrying any legal threats there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Results of the Canadian federal election, 2006
POV fork of Canadian federal election, 2006. Designed by User:E Pluribus Anthony to carry legal threats that were removed from the main article. There's no need to have the election in one article and the results in another. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork and possible violation of WP:NLT -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfunctory article consistent with Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 and predecessors and already discussed on the election talk page; will undoubtedly be expanded in time. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The detailed results will belong in a subarticle like this, not the main article. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia's services are not based in Canada, nor will the editors who will be adding information to this page. --199.44.251.2 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Firstly, as the previous comment noted, Wikipedia is not based in Canada. Secondly, this article is definitely set to be deeply expanded in the very near future. And lastly, it is just the logical successor of Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004. --Angelo 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I support also Speedy Keep for the reasons explained above. --Angelo 01:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. Obviously needed. NoSeptember   talk  01:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep on the grounds that the Election and the Results can exist in two separate articles. However I believe the assumption that Wikipedia is not based in Canada and therefore does not have to abide by certain Canadian election laws is a false one. Wikipedia a worldwide web site and there is no control over the location of the editors who contribute to this page.  Will have to operate on good faith as any publication does in these circumstances. Crunch 01:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The authors who contribute would be responsible for their edits, not Wikipedia. (Not that it will matter in another 15 minutes.) Dcandeto 02:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Strong Keep I'm not sure what the person who nominated this is trying to do.  I note that they have now been blocked, so perhap this is vandalism? If this isn't vandalism, I don't know why the user just doesn't edit the article, rather than trying to delete it.  I just can't fathom why one wouldn't think this page is necessary, given we already have Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 and Results of the Canadian federal election, 2000.  Can we please just end this now and withdraw the AFD? 01:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, 1) precedent set per above, 2) it is about to be expanded, 3) subarticle will be needed. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: will Abstain until I understand Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Section 329 is only relevent while the polls are open .... i.e. for another 6 minutes. After the polls close, we still need this article! Nfitz 02:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Back to "Speedy Keep, 1) precedent set per above, 2) it is about to be expanded, 3) subarticle will be needed." since sec329 is now irrelevent. -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The publication of results of the federal election on the Internet is illegal until all polls in Canada have closed.
 * Keep Is this an attempt to skew the election by posting early "results" ? Ruby 01:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No, because I've been complaining that the ones who started it are actually leaning too far the other way - deleting early results! Not that I've been able to find any real results one way or another (unless you want to believe that NL elected 5 independents! :-) Nfitz 01:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. Regardless, precendent has been set: Results of the Canadian federal election, 2004 -- 199.44.251.2 02:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, the delete process is week-long process. The polls close in 47 minutes, and your asking the article be deleted because it violates Canadian law for those 47 minutes?  Can you do us a favour and in 48 minutes cast a new vote based on the situation then? Nfitz 02:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Section 329 of the Canada Elections Act prohibits publication of election results before the close of all polling stations in all electoral districts that have access to the information. << what exactly does that statement mean? -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 02:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Section 329 of the Elections Act and find out. What you quoted is misleading. --199.44.251.2 02:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC) .. BTW if anyone is interested. Reuters has posted the results. A link can be found on the discussion page for the article. :*Section 329 seems to specifically address the idea of "outside Canada" and I think that's wrong. Besides, Wikipedia is not "outside Canada." What's relevant is that people inside Canada can access the information. It doesn't matter that the servers for Wikipedia or the offices for Wikipedia are located in the U.S. Crunch 02:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC) never mind.
 * Comment. I read Section 329 and found it unclear on the exact application of the law. Here's an article from the CBC today that sheds some more light: http://www.cbc.ca/nb/story/nb_web_20060123.html. Crunch 02:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Canadian law does not apply outside Canada.  Dcandeto 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. We're going to want this page again shortly anyway. And until an international treaty says otherwise, Canada can't force censorship on the rest of the world. Maybe Wikipedia could block Canadian IPs... but I don't think so :). -Nichlemn 02:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If Canada wants to come down here to do something about it they can take their best shot. Ruby 02:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? I'm sorry? I just don't understand wher ethis is coming from.  There's no warnings up against anyone except Canadians??  Nfitz 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete: The publication law has been upheld for now. The Supreme Court may rule on it in the future, but it currently still stands. In addition, I do believe that this restriction of information is justified in the interests of electoral fairness. m. 02:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But now it no longer matters; it's safe to change your vote now. (I believe the same things as well, by the way.) -- Jjjsixsix (talk)/(contribs) @ 03:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Since I'm watching the election results on C-SPAN at the moment, I assume that it is now okay to report the election results. I wanted to vote, however, to show support for the creator.  There is no reason to delete an article that would need to be created tomorrow. -Acjelen 03:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous users reasoning.Kiwidude 03:50, 24 January 2006 (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.