Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey


 * 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 keep. bd2412 T 04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It is WP:TOOSOON for this article to exist. It includes speculation about possible candidates, since none have declared yet. see also WP:NOTCRYSTAL Rusf10 (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom RhinosF1(chat) (status)(contribs) 22:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's not "too soon" at all. This is the next regularly scheduled biannual election. Who is running is speculative, but the event will happen and is notable. Race ratings are already being released. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "What's next for these midterm winners, losers and key players as the run up to 2020 starts", NorthJersey.com, Charles Stile, Trenton Bureau Published 4:50 a.m. ET Nov. 12, 2018. Literally as soon as one House of Representatives election cycle ends, the next one begins. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , to point out what WP:CRYSTAL says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This is notable and almost certain to take place. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps if the article contained any actual facts. All it has is speculation about who is going to run, "race ratings" (more speculative editorial content) and a recap of the last election (already covered at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey). This article is completely different from an article such as 2020 United States presidential election where we have declared candidates. It's why we don't have 2024 United States presidential election either. Just because something will happen doesn't mean it gets an article, it needs factual contents, not just speculation about what could happen.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , it's a fact that those individuals are speculative candidates. We don't know who is going to play in Super Bowl LIV yet, but we have an article for it for the same reason we should keep this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Muboshgu. Doesn't violate WP:CRYSTAL. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments:: If "notable" where is the significant attention or neutral point of view? Seven references from the New Jersey Globe on a WP:BLP related article regarding recent news, that will likely change several times and includes multiple wording such as "would not rule out a challenge", "could challenge", "could run against", " is a possible Republican candidate", serves what purpose? I've got it! The event is likely notable but everything past the lead is certainly surmising, conjecture, speculation, or possibilities by one source which should be removed, but that is a content issue. Otr500 (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, extensive precedent at AfD for keeping articles for next elections (most recently at Articles for deletion/Next Japanese general election). Mélencron (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Muboshgu Djflem (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: a scheduled future election. It does not make sense to delete only for it to be recreated in the near future. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep'; concur with Muboshgu and Mélencron. This is the next election cycle. There's plenty of precedent for this. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2019 (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.