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 redirect, no consensus to delete outright. I cannot merge content back into this article as of present, as it is protected due to a dispute over this very content. An editorial comprimise over what content to readd back into the article (note: the content is still in the history of South Australian general election campaign, 2006, see this), if any, should take place on the talk page of South Australian general election, 2006 and be implemented after disputes are resolved (and protection lifted). I will be protecting the redirect as it is merely a continuation of the dispute at the main election page, which is protected also. Daniel Bryant 06:47, 15 April 2007 (UTC) Note: I modified this close slightly after more information (mainly, the reason why the main article is protected and why this was forked initially) came to hand.[reply]

information Note: this close is on deletion review. See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April 15 for the review debate. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 08:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: DRV endorses the closure as a redirect. Xoloz 15:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Australian general election campaign, 2006

[edit]
South Australian general election campaign, 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Duplicate of large part of South Australian general election, 2006. Was created outside of consensus on 22 February only 6 weeks after the 2006 election article was made an WP:FA. The change was opposed at the project talk page. DanielT5 03:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - Strong Delete and Redirect to election article then. JRG 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not good enough - why is the entire page now dominated by that "Rann gets results" poster - the older picture had examples of several types of poster (and was a free image, as opposed to a fair use image), for example? And the writing still isn't good. This never needed to be split from the original article. Let's just merge them together, as appears to be the consensus here, so this stupid edit war can cease. JRG 00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The changes should be made to the Campaign section of the main article, rather than to the fork article, so that the changes can be appropriately tracked with regards to the largest part of the article. I would have *no* objection, despite my current content objections to the proposed changes, for this article as recently altered (11-12 March) to be pasted over the relevant section in the parent article by the closing admin or another neutral person (it wouldn't be a cut and paste move strictly speaking as the original content originated from here and most of the changes have been by one user - above - who can be appropriately credited), and we can sort out by consensus what happens with it thereafter. This would restore the balance to what it should have been - that the article that should be changed, gets the changes. As JRG said, the current situation is getting ridiculous, and we need to look for small/trivial parts of this where we don't essentially disagree that we can actually get moving, to shrink the size of the potential battleground and limit it to *real* issues, like any point of view or other issues. Orderinchaos 05:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC) - Note that this is now severely tempered by the removal of 36 references, which were nearly all checked individually at FA stage, from the article. I request that this article be userfied or subpaged rather than merged at this stage. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This page now contains substantially different (and I think better) content than the section in South Australian general election, 2006 that it's intended to replace. Deletion would seem to be an inappropriate even for those who oppose the election/campaign article split. Joestella 08:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hence my proposed solution above, which would completely accommodate the content of this page (in fact replacing what is there under the main article in the relevant section), while acknowledging the substantial majority wish that these two related topics belong under one article, and allowing for consensus to direct where to proceed from that point. Note that editing on this page only commenced *after* consensus had established the page was redundant as a duplicate/fork of the original, so the edits in question since 11 March should have been made on the main page in appreciation of this. Orderinchaos 10:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting to note that this article keeps getting better while its parent is locked from editing. I note that the FA process failed to detect that most of the references in this piece were partisan, did not refer to events mentioned in the text, or refer to events long before or after the election. Of course, it's got a little way to go yet (an edit to remove/reduce my own POV would be appreciated) but it's much better now. Joestella 18:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reducing the number of references from 53 to 17 is *not* a good outcome. The "Background" section is now almost completely unreferenced. Large sections of content have been removed which were indeed relevant to the 2006 campaign, despite one person's opinion to the contrary. Nearly all of the previous references were from reliable sources - most were from mainstream media sources, including SA's state newspaper, The Australian and the ABC. Verifiability is a *core policy* of Wikipedia. Please put them back, and stop being disruptive with this. Orderinchaos 04:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since Daniel's nomination, the page has changed virtually 100% [2]. That users Timeshift, ChampagneComedy and I have made extensive changes since I created the article does not make it my property – it is not as though I have been reverting changes to it. I spent many hours actually reading the sources and found that some were actually ALP policy announcements, and that many of those from mainstream media sources referred to events long before or after the campaign. That the reflist has fallen so precipitously is neither here nor there; what matters is that the references now included are relevant and non-partisan.
While DanielT5 is very good at linking to Wikipedia guidelines, he seems to have overlooked WP:Assume good faith - since when has hours of research and writing by multiple users been anything but improving the encyclopaedia? Joestella 06:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ffs now you're editing "strong delete" votes to make them "comment" - what next?!?! And telling *me* to assume good faith. I had not actually voted, although it was fair to assume my nom was a delete vote, but I did clearly say "Per my own nom" at the beginning of my vote so it was clear to anyone reading. DanielT5 10:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that all of Timeshift's mods were *before* the nomination, and he had integrated all of his changes at the main page. It's also worth noting that he agreed on this page that this article is in fact a duplicate and voted for its deletion, edits starting four days after the Afd commenced by previously uninvolved editors who had already made their minority viewpoint clear on this page notwithstanding. I agree with Daniel that two sections which are still there now are hideously under-referenced as a result of these changes. Orderinchaos 06:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Joe, I'm with DanielT5 on the quality of the content. The original article is far more detailed and comprehensive now - the issues section especially - the Adelaide Tram extension and Port River Expressway issues, for example, were left out of the issues section on the newer article, whereas they are covered on the original article; the law and order part of the issues segment is much better covered as well; and the pictures that added to the article three days ago were removed for some reason. There are also a lot more references in the original article. Yes, the original article could do with some changes (which Joe's input would help), but the changes in the Campaign fork have been regressive to say the least, and there's no way that a separate article is warranted. I still think a merge of the two articles is the best outcome. JRG 10:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Adelaide tram extension was approved the previous year, the primary source is the government itself. I could find no reference in the linked sources to the Liberals mentioning it on the campaign trail. The Port Expressway proposal has no source attached to it. Believe me, all the old content that is backed up with sources I kept – there's just not much of it. On Law & Order, the Liberal policy on speed limits isn't sourced, and the stuff about drugs dates from long before and after the election. The only accurate, sourced and relevant information on the subject is "Law and order was another key issue, with Labor promising extra police," but this ignores the opposition's similar promise. I'm not saying this is deliberate POV - it's just poor research. Joestella 11:13, 14 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Why does it need to be sourced back to the Liberal Party (a partisan organisation)? Strange call to make considering you are complaining about POV (accidental or otherwise). If something is approved before and built after an election, it makes logical sense that it will impact on the election in a number of seats which either benefit from or are affected by it. Orderinchaos 11:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a silver lining here, its that hopefully these issues can be thrashed out before the Federal election later this year. Recurring dreams 11:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
More