Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgia United States Senate 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  d elete. east. 718 at 18:17, 11/3/2007

Georgia United States Senate election, 2010

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

My crystal ball predicts the deletion of this speculative article. MER-C 12:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Doesn't come under WP:CRYSTAL - Point one says that if an event is notable, is certain to take place it is okay. Specific examples: 2008 U.S. presidential election and 2012 Summer Olympics--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - until such time as there is maybe a declared candidate. At the very least the list of potential candidates needs to be deleted as WP:OR. Otto4711 13:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete. Phoenix-wiki, you've taken that point from WP:CRYSTAL out of context. The full section is this:
 * Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include 2008 U.S. presidential election, and 2012 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2016 U.S. presidential election and 2036 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.
 * This article is purely speculation and original research. It's clearly a candidate for deletion on WP:V ad WP:OR. - Che Nuevara 14:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, per WP:CBALL this is an event which is certain to happen, and due to the staggered six year terms in the Senate, this is the next election for that seat. Repeat, the next election for that seat. --Dhartung | Talk 17:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the next one, but where are the reliable sources? The article is pure speculation and original research. Just because it borderline passes WP:CRYSTAL doesn't mean it comes anywhere near passing WP:V and WP:OR. - Che Nuevara 23:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CRYSTAL defined. Almost nothing verifiable can be said about the race beyond its being scheduled. The list of potential candidates is speculation. • Gene93k 18:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Che Will (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as Dhartung stated this is the next election for this seat and it is certian to happen. As such, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply as an argument for deletion. TonyBallioni 20:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Che makes good points, but it is the very next election. I would not be for keeping a similar article about the 2016 or 2022 election. Edison 21:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete While the article does source the rumors and speculation to reliable sources (weird...), I have concerns about it being a little early to have per-state articles on an upcoming election. Not to mention, all of the sourced information, and then some, is already included in United States Senate election, 2010. This just doesn't seem necessary unless the particular state race becomes one of greater consequence and importance, or if the information becomes too unwieldy for the main article. LaMenta3 02:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep According to the example given in CRYSTAL. The immediately next election to a Senate seat is of such importance that planning starts years before the election, and as soon as there is information, the article should be created. The example given was deliberately chosen to illustrate that discussion about the elections following that will rarely never be appropriate for an article. DGG (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What information is there? There will be an election. The same could be said of any election between now and the end of time. The election will be on a particular date (which isn't even sourced in the article and seems awfully late in the month, but I digress). Nothing that needs to be split off from the main election article. Otto4711 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article includes sources, and these are likely to increase as we get closer to the election. That's the next election. THE KING 09:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The sources are not about the election. One verifies that the governor is term-limited and the other is an opinion poll about a potential candidate who has not to the best of my knowledge declared his candidacy. Otto4711 19:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, people are talking about it, people care&mdash;that's notability. Everyking 09:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. Might want to read WP:N. Otto4711 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Attention received is the very essence of notability. When something gets attention on that level, there are typically sources published about it&mdash;that's verifiability. The article meets both criteria. Everyking 04:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The essence of notability is coverage that is substantively about the subject in independent reliable sources. People pay attention to all sorts of things that don't meet notability guidelines. Please offer up the independent reliable sources that include substantive coverage of this topic. Otto4711 12:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That isn't the essence. Attention received is the essence; coverage is the reflection of it. But it's functionally the same thing. I admit that the sources are not as strong as I first thought they were, but we can definitely source the speculation that Isakson is going to leave the seat to run for Governor, and that's obviously a key factor in this election, and it gives us something to build this article off of (beyond the simple fact that the election is scheduled to occur). Everyking 07:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, obviously notable, certain to happen, sources are there (though there could be more); what's the problem? — Nightstallion 14:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And again, the sources are not about the election. One is to verify that the current governor of Georgia, who is not a declared Senate candidate, is term-limited from running for governor again. The other is a poll result. There is no verifiable information about this election other than it will happen and the date on which it will happen (which is not sourced). Otto4711 16:20, 1 November 2007 (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.