Draft talk:2026 South Australian state election

Draft submission declined: Too soon

The submitted draft of this article was declined on the grounds that it is "Too Soon. This is 2022, the elections are in 2026.". While I wholeheartedly agree with the second sentence of this assertion and will extensively debate anyone who is of the opinion that it is not 2022, the implication that this indicates that it is too soon to accept this article is arbitary. The following articles about 2026 elections are already in the mainspace:

• 2026 Baden-Württemberg state election
• 2026 Berlin state election
• 2026 Mecklenburg-Vorpommern state election
• 2026 Rhineland-Palatinate state election
• 2026 Saxony-Anhalt state election
• Next Scottish Parliament election (First sentence: The next Scottish Parliament election is due to be held on Thursday 7 May 2026...)
• 2026 United States Senate elections

I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to argue that the Baden-Württemberg state election has greater notability on the English Wikipedia than the South Australian election.

I'll also note that the 2022 SA election was in the mainspace at the same point in the electoral cycle four years ago. It has been standard practice to produce articles on the upcoming election in each state as soon as the most recent election is finalised. All of the other states have articles on their upcoming election and while I know that they are now sooner relative to the present, most of them were created four years in advance.-DilatoryRevolution (talk) 09:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@DilatoryRevolution No precedent is ever set by any article for any other. If it were we would have a brutally fast descent into idiocracy

My opinion is that it is too soon. Yours differs.

Our role as reviewers is to seek to ensure that an article will not immediately be subject to one of our deletion processes when it is accepted. That is why we push it back to the author. We want to accept articles. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

With respect though, why is your opinion what it is? I realise that precedence doesn't mean that the article will be accepted but don't you find it odd that all those articles are accepted but this one isn't? This is clearly the odd one out. The Template:Politics of Australia has a gaping hole where this article should be. It seems strange not to suggest deletion for Next Scottish Parliament election which is due in May 2026 before suggesting deletion of one in March 2026 because March 2026 is too far away. That seems very arbitrary. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@DilatoryRevolution There is nothing "clear" here. Since you feel you are correct I suggest yiu resubmit for further review. We have many poor articles here, many that are too soon. You are at liberty to suggest any article cor deletion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• I think having an article (both for SA and the rest of the bunch) is reasonable: the election is virtually guaranteed to happen.

I do think the current draft leans too much into WP:CRYSTAL though. It has photos of the current party leaders (no guarantee they will still be party leaders, or that those parties will be the two main parties in SA politics, in four years’ time). The date section repeats the law, but does not give the date (for good reason, as it is not known yet) - it should probably be scrapped entirely. Even the voting details (instant-runoff, supervision by ECSA etc.) are dubious (is it likely that will be true? yes. But it is not a sure thing.). All that stuff might be in existing articles, in which case I recommend removing it there as well. Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

(I came here from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#Very_early_articles_on_forthcoming_elections.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 13:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

• • Thank you for this constructive feedback. I think that the points you raise are quite valid but, as you say, many of them would also apply to a wide variety of existing articles. Something worthy of wider consideration. Thanks. -DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

An alternate article for this topic has now been created despite this draft being rejected three times. The edit history of this draft should be preserved. TimTrent and Tigraan, I am considering nominating the alternate article for deletion. Would you consider supporting such a nomination? --DilatoryRevolution (talk) 10:20, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, I agree the "alternate article" should not exist as-is. But I think it should exist in a different state (without the dubious predictions). So technically, WP:NOTCLEANUP applies.

(If you ask me, I think our creation/deletion processes have a much too large bias towards fait accompli, and that article is a good example of that.) Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:50, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@DilatoryRevolution Thank you for alerting me to the existence of the article. I have made my own mind up about it in the same manner that I would were I to review it at AFC 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:26, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• In my opinion, as long as articles of this nature provided differing information or context (eg. a pendulum, different candidates) from another article than I think that its addition to wikipedia is suitable ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 06:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)