Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016


 * 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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TOOSOON. All this is pure speculation at this point. The election is three years away. ...William 16:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions....William 20:06, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep No, it's not "pure speculation". WP:TOOSOON says that "If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon". Well, sourced do exist. Johnson is running for re-election, Russ Feingold is openly talking about a re-match, there are other sourced potential candidates and there's been polling conducted on the race. Just because it's 3 years away doesn't mean it shouldn't have an article. It's a scheduled election like the 2016 presidential election: it's notable, almost certain to take place and it's got declared candidates, potential candidates and polling. Tiller54 (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't understand the decision to nominate this article for deletion. For one, there's an article on the 2016 Senate election in New Hampshire, but that has not been nominated for deletion. To give a point of reference, this is around the time that election articles start to be created. The article for the 2012 Senate election in Nevada was created in October 2009, more than three full years before the election. But beyond all of that, I provided sources, because not only have media outlets started to talk about the election, albeit within the narrowed confines of whether Feingold will run again, but polling has been done on the election, which leads me to believe that it is not too early to create this article. Tqycolumbia (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Lugnuts.  Royal broil  12:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - While this is a political event that will happen in the future, it inevitably will happen and is already the subject of news coverage in the mainstream media. If we toss this out now, at what point does it become acceptable to write on this encyclopedic topic — after the election??? Carrite (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - The race is going to happen and already well sourced. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subjectively, I agree that it seems a bit early to be writing about this topic, but it seems notable enough to attract several citations, and there's no specific policy against eagerness.  This seems to pass WP:CRYSTAL. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Ninjabot. I feel it's too early, but polling has already started. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2013 (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.