Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009


 * 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. Or at any rate no consensus to delete. Merges and moves can be worked out on the article talk page.  Sandstein  08:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009

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

I previously (and prematurely) redirected this to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. I should have instead proposed this AFD. This article is too speculative. Right now, there is only one likely election: for the 5th district, the seat held by Rahm Emanuel, who will be vacating it to become White House Chief of Staff. The other vacancies are much too speculative. —Markles 17:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There is likely going to be more than one election and this is a repository for encyclopedic content on those possibilities.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The current version of the article uses the phrase "should X happen, then…" 5 times in 2 paragraphs.  In a couple of instances it's used in a compounded way: Should A happen and then should B happen, then a special election would be necessary.  Perhaps this could be cleaned up by current editors, but it's one sign that it's too speculative for WP.—Markles 02:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * When we say speculative we don't mean something that we expect to happen. In this case, ther is probably a 70-75% chance that a member of the IL congressional delegation will replace Obama.  There is prably another 10% someone else from the delegation will become part of the Obama Administration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There will be an election. Whether one or more, is another matter, but one likely one is enough. Likely, & people writing about them=an article. in fact, even just possible, & people nonetheless writing about them=an article. CRYSTL applies only to things that are entirely speculative and which people can not yet write about. As soon as people start publishing in RSs about future events, the article is justified. DGG (talk) 05:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and remove material which is totally speculative, i.e. material which may or may not happen. Those items which are certain to happen but which simply do not have a date should stay.  Eventually, the article will need to be split into one article per significant race, for now the article can stay as-is minus the speculation.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI Each year that there is more than one House election there is a summary article such as [United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2008]] and separate articles for specific race. Split is the wrong term because this article will remain if there are two or more elections.  There is a big difference between something that is totally speculative and something the may or may not happen.  The former should be removed and the latter should remain if it is probably and well-sourced.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep one doesn't need much of a crystal ball to envision a special election to fill Rahm Emanuel's seat in the House. That there may be other races is speculation, though the article's title is open-ended and a rename can readily address that issue. There appears to be no reason to justify deletion deriving from the other potential races. Alansohn (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Move to Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009, this is the standard naming for all special elections in the House. – Zntrip 02:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not intended to replace Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. It is meant to complement all specific race articles.  If there turns out to be only one, we can redirect.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would an article need a compliment? I would merge pertinent information into said articles. We don't even know that there will be any special elections aside from the 5th district. – Zntrip 04:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There is so much press about the speculation of whose districts might be up for election and so high a probability of having more than one that we should probably have an article now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009. A note in that article about other potential races will be sufficient until we know whether one will happen. Motivating this one with other races might happen violates WP:CRYSTAL. Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply anticipated events only violate WP:CRYSTAL, if they are unverifiable speculation. These prospective events have encyclopedic content that is verifiable.  I.E., we even have affidavits documenting that certain individuals are under consideration to replace Obama.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They were under consideration by a crook whose lawyer announced yesterday that he wouldn't be making the appointment after all. So If he makes the appointment, then if a Representative is appointed, then that one seat is vacant.  Or If the Lt. Gov makes the appointment, then if Representative is appointed, then that one seat is vacant.  Or if there's a special election, and if a Representative is elected, then that one seat is vacant.  But it's all speculative in exactly the way WP:Crystal forbids.  To use other elections in other US jurisdictions as precendent, we've disallowed articles when the vacancy itself is based on reliable news sources but isn't official.  We've disallowed articles when the vacancy is even official, but the Governor hasn't yet called for an election.  If this article is allowed, then what isn't too speculative?—Markles 17:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Point me to two AFDs for official vacancies that have not been set for election where the article was deleted. By that standard, shouldn't Illinois's 5th congressional district special election, 2009 also be deleted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's one, it's the most recent: Articles for deletion/Ohio's 11th congressional district special election, 2008. IL5- At least that's very likely to be necessary because the incumbent has been named to a job that doesn't even need Senate approval.  On January 20, 2009, the incumbent will have a new job which will mandate the vacancy.—Markles 18:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, in the example you point to there was question about whether statutory authority to choose a replacement for congress rested with the electorate. In IL, there is no question of where statutory authority rests to replace a congressman.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * But there's no congressman to replace! That's why this is speculative.  The only replacement is in the 5th district.  That's it.  I've read what you've written in the article and it's all if, then-if, then-if.  It's all second and third-degree conjecture.  That's good writing and very interesting.  But it clearly defies WP:Crystal.—Markles 20:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. – Zntrip 01:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Now there are two certain special elections because Obama selected Ray LaHood as United States Secretary of Transportation.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. LaHood's was retiring anyway.—Markles 22:13, 19 December 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.

Please see the subsequent discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives special elections in Illinois, 2009.—Markles 15:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)