Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Illinois, 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. T. Canens (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Illinois, 2014

 * – ( View AfD View log )

For the moment there's very little that we can say (and source) on the subject, and we can't really expect there to be for another year or two. (Contested prod.) – hysteria18 (talk) 16:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Way too early to be building this page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It is the very next election for the Senate seat held by Durbin, with no crystal ball required to verify that fact, or to verify it will get extensive coverage (see the previous umpteen US Senate elections). There was significant coverage of the 1998 Illinois Senate election 3 years before: . There was lots of coverage of the 2010 Illinois Senate election, starting right after Obama won the Presidency. If the article were deleted now, it would just be recreated a few months or a year thereafter, as Republicans jockey for the spot to oppose him. Edison (talk) 17:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL way to early for this article. Mo ainm  ~Talk  18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't see why it is too early - 2014 is the next Senate election for that class. Category:United States Senate elections, 2014 has seven other 2014 senate elections. --B (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you're aware that other stuff exists is an argument to avoid. I'd add that there's a clear difference between this and, say, United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2014: reliable sources have made some commentary, however limited, on the Kentucky race but (to my knowledge) haven't done the same for the Illinois election. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete because no sources have been provided yet. It's not yet known whether this will be a particularly competitive race or not. (Granted, even a minimally competitive race can have an article created later, but there is no point in creating an article now that has no content worth reading.) Nor have any candidates declared their interest in running yet, not even the incumbent. The article can be re-created when there are reliable sources upon which to base an article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Clearly that US Senate race, like all others in recent history, will get significant coverage in a few months to a year, as the election date approaches. If, from some mistaken reading of WP:CRYSTAL the article is deleted, it will be soon resurrected and fleshed out, since Durbin will or will not run for re-election, he might have primary opponents, the Democratic nominee will certainly have one or more opponents from other parties, and the seat is critical to the control of the US Senate. Is temporarily removing this article the most pressing thing Wikipedia has to waste time on? This is not about whether some rock group will or will not issue their 5th studio album at some future date,or whether some actor will star in a movie which may or may not get made. Those are the sort of things which "WP:Crystal" is aimed at.  Edison (talk) 05:48, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What, if any, candidates have declared their intention to run in this election? The time for this article is after candidates have filed, not when their names are still matters of sheer speculation. THAT is why WP:CRYSTAL applies...trying to predict who will run and who won't is not Wikipedia's raison d'être. Unless there's at least one filed candidate from each major party (including any independent candidates), the article is premature. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Yes, an election will happen, but since we are currently in 2011 and no reliable sources discussing this election substantively have been produced (and a quick search didn't turn up any), all but the date is crystalballing. Hekerui (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Yes, it will happen. But there is nothing to be said about other than it will happen. -- Whpq (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - It doesnt appear to violate WP:CRYSTAL because it isn't predicting anything, but there's no content on the page. We're over 3 years away, and the page itself acknowledges (at this time) that there isn't any information regarding the election. For this reason, delete, but by all means recreate when information comes out. If it is kept, I warn that by having the "potential" header on the page, it would probably be violating WP:CRYSTAL if anyone were to put a potential candidate on there. 21troyz (talk) 20:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep major event of national significance that is certainly going to happen, and about which there will be increasing content. Of course, we could put it in half a year from now, but it does no conceivable harm at present. As a matter of policy, I think we should always have articles of this nature for national level offices.    DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 14 June 2011 (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.