Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Alaska, 2014


 * 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   delete. Yes, there are RS, but that does not constitute significant coverage. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Alaska, 2014

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and nothing can reliably be written about this article for a number of years. Lets finish this election season before we go forward 4 years? TM 23:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article on an election that is four years in the future? And the only candidate that we can verify would have run is dead. Everything else is pure crystal balling. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WAY to early for this. The only other one in United States Senate elections, 2014 that has an 'article' is Massachusetts, but that only redirects back to the main page. Speaking of which, do we actually need the article on US Senate Elections 2014? VikÞor |  Talk 22:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete It's going to happen eventually so it's not as much a crystal ball issue, but unless there's content specifically mentioned towards this election, I think future elections should be limited to the "next" election, which is either 2010, or 2012 if you consider 2010 as "now" since it's so close. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. We normally keep one set of elections ahead. Bearian (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep yes, in US politics, politicians do start planning that far ahead, and there are RSs to prove it. I think probably the general rule is that we should have articles for the next forthcoming election for all national level politcal races.    DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, this seat being on a six-year cycle defeats all crystal-ball arguments. Two candidates having announced and one of them dying is sufficient starter text. There are several more sources easily found on just the ramifications and facets of those facts. What, are they not gonna hold it? Here and elsewhere Lisa Murkowski is being approached to file for the seat. JJB 07:50, 24 September 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.