Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United states senate elections, 2014

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 no consensus. Sandstein 18:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate elections in 2014

Way too early for this. The Senators elected this year aren't even sworn in yet. The article says "Going into the 2014 election, the Senate consisted of 40-42 Republicans, 56-58 Democrats, and two independents". How can anyone prediect what will happen in the next 2 senate races, before 2014. CTJF83Talk 20:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete concur with nom. At this point, we don't have enough information to write anything substantial here, so this would probably just be an example of crystal ballery. Bfigura ^(talk) 20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing !vote to Keep. At some point, this will definitely become an important page. When that happens is a bit debatable, although it's probably not now. Still, since we have the page, there's nothing really to be gained by removing it, since it will need to be recreated eventually. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, this election will be almost entriely dependent on the results of the preceding election which is yet to happen. Icewedge (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a modified copy of United States Senate Elections 2008, and an unnecessary one at that. The premise is that the Senators who were elected two weeks ago will be up for reelection in six years. That can be explained in one sentence in the original article. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The debate has been reinstated by request after a quick closure .
The page was recreated and moved to United States Senate elections in 2014. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the AfD header so that people don't ignore it as a redlink - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 08:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is very highly likely that these elections will occur and that they will be notable. To the extent that this article assumes certain things (that the currently elected senators will still be alive and in office, etc) the article can be de-crystal-balled. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying the article won't be notable in the future, but it isn't needed 6 years in advance. We have no idea how many of these 33 or how ever many were elected this year, will be alive, and in office in 6 years. CTJF83Talk 09:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it is important that the article not attempt to be a crystal ball, there is already notable activity directed at influencing the outcomes of these elections — G_d help us! —SlamDiego_←T 12:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Come on! What is the point of an article predicting the US elections 6 years into the future? TopGearFreak ^Talk 13:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While a case can certainly be made for keeping the 2012 article (and indeed has on 2 previous AFDs), this one is simply too far ahead. All this article consists of is rehashing information available elsewhere -- basically, who got elected in 2008 or was in office, and a load of unsourced speculation. There's no way to know at this early stage who listed here will be running again in 2014; given the law of averages a few of these folks may not even be alive, or may have retired, by then. Obviously this should be recreated when there is substantive, sourced information available, but that won't be for a couple of years yet, at the very least. WP:CRYSTAL does not always apply when an article is on a guaranteed event, but it does apply when the event has absolutely no information beyond speculation which enters into other areas such as WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. 23skidoo (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted earlier, this is just a modified version of the 2008 elections article. Sure, it is very highly likely that these elections will occur. The same can be said about Congressional elections in 2016 and 2018 and 2020 and 2022 etc., so that's not a reason to keep. If there is, as stated, "already notable activity directed at influencing the outcomes of these elections", then all I can say is that it isn't notable enough that it's being reported anywhere. This was a cheap article with no effort involved, other than a copy and edit. I see it not so much as crystalballing, as it is someone's wish to be the first person to create an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. United States senator terms are six years long, and there are multiple articles which set precedent for creating articles for future elections. Anything beyond this is too early (at this current time, of course), but I see no reason to delete a perfectly reasonable and encyclopedic article which would be shortly recreated anyway. As usual, content in these articles may be imperfect and crystal balliness should be avoided, but that doesn't warrant deletion. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 19:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I don't get the appeal of writing about an election 6 years from now, when everything is almost entirely speculation (even if it's sourced enough to get around the "crystal ball" clause), the article exists, and at least we know who the incumbents will be (if they don't die or retire in the next 6 years). The article's there... this is as good a point as any to allow it... if we delete it now we'd just have this AFD again every 2 months or so till it finally got kept. Might as well just save the hassle and keep it now. --Rividian (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the elections will almost undoubtedly be held, and people will start planning for them well in advance. Since it is quite clear which seats will be up for election at that date, it is predictable what contest will occur, though it is much les predictable who the candidates will be. The present article is a framework to exapnd. I note that Google News "Inhofe cites seniority in win, looks to 2014 race" as an actual headline (& I only checked the first 10 hits there) By our usual standards, that should be sufficient evidence. DGG (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2008 (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.