Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota gubernatorial 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, per established consensus interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL as it applies to future elections. Note that this doesn't preclude much of the article's current content being deleted as OR. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota gubernatorial election, 2010

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

Crystal ball time! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:36, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Alcarinquë (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait I heard that Scott Vyka is running for governer of California in 2010, why not this? Just kidding, delete under crystal ball.   P HARMBOY  (moo) (plop) 23:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the article: there's a source, but this is essentially like an article on the 2040 Olympics: really virtually nothing can be said yet. By the way, this is posted twice on the AFD page; nom please remove one.  Nyttend (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As is customary, the politicians and consequently the news sources start talking about one election as soon as the previous one is over, if not before. This has two references already. One blog, one newspaper. DGG (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do what you want, but if you're going to delete this article shouldn't you also delete these other ones?
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_gubernatorial_election,_2010
 * Ugh, delete - "The following candidates have not formally expressed any intent to run for Governor of Minnesota in 2010 but their candidacy is possible." Unsourced speculation, crystal balletry at its worst. When come back bring substantive coverage in multiple sources. Otto4711 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I said, do what you want, but the almost all of the other articles list only possible candidates, too, so should they not also be deleted? Alcarinquë (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the forum to be discussing the other similar articles. Whether they exist or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 23:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Strong precedent that we start tracking future elections once reliable sources are available has been met. No crystal ball is needed to tell us that this election will take place and any legitimate issues of content questioned by nominator should be addressed within the article and is not a valid argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep this is an election that will take place and there already is press circulating about it. Personally, I have to say "ugh" because I think it's too early, but oh well...--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article needs some cleaning up, but that's not a reason to delete it. It just needs some work, and in the future will have much more information. There is a strong tradition of creating articles for known future events such as elections and sporting events like the Super Bowl and the Olympics. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Precedent seems to be that the next scheduled election in any jurisdiction is not crystal ball gazing. McWomble (talk) 05:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.   -- Eóin (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2008 (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.