Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazilian general election, 2010


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 08:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian general election, 2010

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It's a complete futurology. No information is available yet (maybe only the day of the election). There will be the election, for sure. But the article is full of unsourced information, it's not verifiable. All "possible candidates" are there just because they are famous. But the parties actually haven't decided anything yet, it's still pure speculation. In portuguese wikipedia, it was decided to delete the article because it's WP:CRYSTAL: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Eleições presidenciais no Brasil em 2010. Takkyuu (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.  —Takkyuu (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CRYSTAL and re-write once its over. Eddie.willers (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Plenty of future events have articles, such as the Olympics, and elections have been no different. Hell, at least this one has a date, unlike this article.  If there is information that you feel is "crystal balling" remove it, but this seems to me a clearly useful article on a notable subject.  TastyCakes (talk) 15:47, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Common sense says this article is non-controversial. ... From the nom: No information is available yet (maybe only the day of the election). That just doesn't make sense. --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the first point in WP:CRYSTAL. An article about a notable event that is certain to take place in roughly a year is not crystalballery. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but I'd be for removing that grid about the future candidates. That grid is really the only crystalballery in the article, and if the US elections are any indication, it's not going to be for sure until we know who is running in this election. --63.64.30.2 (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above arguments


 * Comment If kept, IMHO every unsourced information should be removed (like the grid). Probably only the date is available. The rest is complete spaculation. The grid was even bigger (and funnier) in portuguese Wikipedia. I'm gonna remove it right now and try to find sources. But it's still unsourced. Algébrico (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2009 (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.