While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.
This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Candidates of the next Australian federal election is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Hi all,
The timing for returning this to mainspace is the guideline "until the next Australian federal election's date and candidates are more certain and there is more content for an article".
What are our thoughts about exactly when that is? I have a few options we could consider:
Submit immediately and continue building in mainspace
Move when we are within one year of the election (24th of May)
Move when a majority of seats have a candidate listed in them
Move when all seats have the major party candidates listed
Move when all seats have all candidates listed
Move when the election is called (Likely 5-10 weeks before the election)
I think it's useful to have consensus discussed ahead of time about what we want this article to look like in a "ready" state. GraziePrego (talk) 06:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Politely notifying those involved in previous discussions:
Thanks for raising this. Unfortunately the closing comment that "the page will inevitably move back to mainspace once nominations begin in earnest" doesn't provide much guidance about timing. The closer did state that "for the vast majority of races, candidates have not yet been decided" and similar comments were made by the draftify votes. Based on that, I think having at least one confirmed candidate in a majority of seats (including the Senate) would be a reasonable metric - obviously with inline citations as per the current state of the article. ITBF (talk) 06:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to echo ITBF and say when there are confirmed candidates in a majority of seats. I think that is in line with the two AfD results and the recent deletion review close. TarnishedPathtalk 06:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a sensible metric. - Enos733 (talk) 15:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 62 references, the article follows the format of previous candidates articles, and we are sooner to the election than when all the other candidates articles were published. I have no problem pushing this into article space and contributions can continue there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move when the majority of seats have two or more candidates listed (each properly sourced); or
move when a major newspaper or magazine publishes a guide to candidates in a majority of seats.
This is a good measure. Currently only 3.33% of lower house seats have 2 or more candidates so still a long way to go. Teraplane (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think "the majority of seats" is probably too high, since parties don't always run candidates in every possible seat, and also because I think it's quite likely that coverage of various individual races will be uneven, prioritizing areas that look to be more competitive. What I mean here is that we may have a situation where the majority of candidates are listed, or the majority of contested races are listed, but the article does not yet meet a "majority of seats" guideline. At that point I do think that people will be coming to wikipedia for this information, and we ought to have an article for them to find.
Does it make sense to add "move when a majority of seats have a candidate listed by one specific party" to the two above? eg, if Labor has a candidate listed for at least half of the seats, we can move it.
I should add that I don't have any particular interest in this article and won't be editing it myself. My position in the AfD and in general is simply that I think it is fine to have articles that are mostly unfinished in mainspace, so that they can be edited and improved. -- asilvering (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
since parties don't always run candidates in every possible seat is definitely not true. Looking at the prior election, I don’t see a single seat with less than five parties running. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and the big, big issue with this article is that the vast majority of electorates have absolute no candidates listed. How can an article claim to call itself "Candidates of the next Australian federal election" when it fails to tell us who the vast majority of those candidates are? TarnishedPathtalk 05:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was ready for mainspace when it was at AfD. There are currently sourced announced candidates. Just move the damn thing already. SportingFlyerT·C 16:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It fails the GNG, no secondary source content. So it’s justification relies on being a navigation aid.
As primary source data, it is woefully incomplete. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 64 secondary sources, it more than meets general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no secondary source content in the article. It is all data. And as data, it is terribly incomplete and non-randomly so. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it incomplete? Most of the content is supported by secondary sources, only some is supported by primary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is it incomplete? Is that a serious question?
There is no secondary source content on the page. Would you like to give me an example of a source being used as a secondary source? SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t this a secondary source? The primary source it’s discussing is Reynolds’ Facebook post. GraziePrego (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a secondary source, and sourced content that is secondary source content. Sourcing facts from a secondary source doesn’t make the facts into secondary source content. The draft is all facts, facts are always primary source content, however sourced. The secondary sources are not being used as secondary sources. The point is that the draft will be found to fail the GNG. It’s claim for inclusion is as important spinout data (table of the candidates), and right now it is mostly empty cells. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no argument about GNG, the candidates articles meet general notability. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be a tertiary source, not a random collection of facts. Refer to WP:NOT. TarnishedPathtalk 13:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not a candidate's article. It is a candidates article, which is notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which source discusses the set of candidates collectively? Find that one, and it’s time to move to mainspace. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All 64 sources discuss the candidates, and most are secondary sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source typing requires examination of how the source is being used. A source may be primary for one purpose, and secondary for another. This page is an extreme example of facts only. Every source is being used as a primary source, for a fact. There is no transformation of facts into information in this page. It cannot be justified through the GNG. A GNG-based argument will not save it in mainspace.
Its justification will be as a source for the set of candidates. While most seats don’t have candidates, it fails that purpose. It currently implies that most seats have no candidates. It is too drafty. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists of candidates are generally notable (GNG). Most sources are secondary sources, as they are secondary to the event. The tables implying that most seats have no candidates is purely an editorial dispute - the cells without candidates used to contain "TBD". Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:23, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:NLIST. A list (or table) of all candidates in all seats in a national election is never a notable standalone list.
Read secondary source again. You are blurring from the historiographical term to the journalism term. Wikipedia is historiography, not journalism. Sure, anticipation of near future news, almost entirely sourced to newspapers, sounds like journalism, but Wikipedia is not journalism. For Wikipedia, newspapers are the worst acceptable sources.
The list of all candidates does not belong in mainspace until it is a list of candidates. “Majority of seats with two or more declared candidates” I think is a good pragmatic test for when the list is getting serious. I assume that this will be well before the date of the election is declared. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to read those pages. Wikipedia is neither journalism nor historiography, it is an encyclopaedia. A list with any amount of candidates is notable, and there is no minimum candidate requirement for this article to exist. Onetwothreeip (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A list with any amount of candidates is notable". So a list with one non-notable candidate satisfies WP:GNG? Is that your argument? TarnishedPathtalk 14:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's sourced, yes. It's an article related to the article for the election itself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If non-notable candidate doesn't pass WP:GNG for their own article, how do you propose that a list with only that same candidate would pass WP:GNG? TarnishedPathtalk 00:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but that wasn't how the AfD was closed, so we have to work with what we've got. -- asilvering (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong views. Stifle (talk) 07:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify – I concur with their suggested way forward not the secondary source stuff J2m5 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Candidate selection is getting momentum. Villian Factman (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, if for all sitting members who are not known to be not running, they were included as “presumed <incumbant>”, then the table would look less ridiculous. At the moment, it looks like the governing party has no candidates. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming incumbents are going to be the candidates for the next election and putting their names into the tables, without sourcing, strikes me as original research. TarnishedPathtalk 00:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
