Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - predictions


 * 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   merge to United States House of Representatives elections, 2010.  DGG ( talk ) 18:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 - predictions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

From the contested PROD: "Wikipedia is not a repository for every exhaustive piece of information or a database of political predictions." I think a POLLING article, such as accompanied the British Election articles is suitable, not sure about predictions. Safiel (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Currently unsure, leaning delete Not completely decided here, I want to see what some of the others say, before I completely make up my mind. Safiel (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious merge is obvious.  ☭ Fr yP od  00:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep with the rationale I gave here, but I'm also open-minded about merging it back into United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 and don't understand why it was split in the first place. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge This shouldn't be a stand alone article. It's relevant as part of United States House of Representatives elections, 2010 but not separate of that. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge classic WP:CRYSTAL even if RS give Predictions about stuff we dont need an article also Classic WP:CONTENTFORK Weaponbb7 (talk) 01:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge I created a new article because the main article had too much material and had long load times. If we decide not to keep, then merge. But don't totally get rid of it, because it is very relevent information. Getting rid of all of this material is the equivalent of not mentioning how Obama is the first black president in the 2008 presidential election article. The predictions are very important info.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You should never fork out an article without consensus again. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seriously, I'm a hardcore inclusionist, but how in the hell is a list of predictions remotely related to the encyclopedia project? We can't document the biographies of candidates, but we can have pages dedicated to ephemeral predictions? I really don't follow... Carrite (talk)
 * Delete WP should be for facts, not for a collection of predictions. There must be another website for this. Wolfview (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I PRODed the article (along with its sister articles for 2006 and 2008). Thousands of people make predictions about every political race and we don't need collections of all of them. If a particular prediction is particularly noteworthy a simple line in one or more of the many articles devoted to these upcoming elections is more than sufficient. Implicates WP:CRYSTAL, implicates WP:IINFO, and since there's nothing that indicates that these particular predictors are more important than the many other predictors, implicates WP:OR by synthesis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and Merge It doesn't warrant its own article, but that chart is factual, relevant, and informative.  EdEColbert  Let me know 06:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Delete and/or Merge Doesn't warrant it's own article unless its a legit content fork.... which it isn't because the main article is pretty small as is. Also, no one is going to actually type in this unintuitive title, so I don't think it is worth keeping the redirect, but if consensus is to merge without a delete I'm ok with that, as pointless as it may seem. Ryan Norton 08:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL a list of predictions is not encyclopedic, what next the 2011 weather forecast? Mo ainm  ~Talk  17:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL or at very least merge back into the main article. Safiel (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Your interpretation of WP:CRYSTAL is flawed. There are numerous websites and news outlets devoted to predicting these elections, individually and in aggregate. Refer to the Intrade and FiveThirtyEight.com articles and sites. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge - the useful chart alone is worth keeping. Bearian (talk) 23:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge. This was forked off for no good reason. Since the forking, it has been updated. To reverse the forking while preserving contribs, it should be merged back to United States House of Representatives elections, 2010. Also, I actually refer to this page as a user of Wikipedia, as do over 350 other people every day. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge I agree it shouldn't have been forked absent any discussion whatsoever. It's based on polling, so it may fit with that article as opposed to the Complete article. If there is a website providing this same information in one spot, a link to it would be preferable. If the load time is overlong, perhaps there's a problem with the table itself? Flatterworld (talk) 14:38, 12 August 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.