Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New York City mayoral election, 2013


 * 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. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  00:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

New York City mayoral election, 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Too early for this unsourced, speculative page WP:CRYSTAL C T J F 8 3  chat 20:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely disagree. The article on the 2009 election was started in 2005. I also plan on adding sources very soon. --Jleon (talk) 20:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason to keep....Wikipedia standards have far increased since then. Also just because it was created then, doesn't mean it should have been. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I withdraw the nomination due to sources being added. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete – Agree Crystalball. ShoesssS Talk 20:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is now sourced with further sources coming shortly. The potential candidates are already actively fundraising and the election is beginning to get news coverage, so I think it is overzealous to delete it. --Jleon (talk) 20:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - There are now three sources on the article (two from the NY Times, and one from WSJ). Also, one of the leading candidates has already announced that he is running. --Jleon (talk) 21:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep well sourced to NY Times and WSJ, impeccable sources. Even is it wasn't sourced we are !voting on the concept, not the state of the article at any given time. Raising money for next election begins even before the previous election. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Rule 1 of WP:CRYSTAL (!) which states: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." Prehaps the nom should read the policy they are citing before nominating articles in the future.  Lugnuts  (talk) 07:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * AGFing would be great on your part. if you continue to read "....are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research" When I nominated the article, it was unsourced, OR speculation, so at the time it was a right nomination...now that sources are added, I'll withdraw if Shoessss agrees. C T J F 8 3  chat 20:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is the very next election, which will surely happen, and is not too remote in time. Bearian (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ironically, if it doesn't happen, it'll be even more notable!  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Election is on the calendar already and there are candidates preparing to run, backed by reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 13:26, 7 October 2010 (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.