Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate elections, 2012 (2nd nomination)


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 20:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

United States Senate elections, 2012

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This page was nominated for deletion once before, and survived. What was not mentioned by any of the participants, however, is that the article contains no references whatsoever. That's a clear violation of Wikipedia policy (WP:V and WP:RS). Furthermore, the existence of an article for an election taking place two cycles after the next one pretty clearly violates WP:CRYSTAL. The corresponding 2008 article is understandable because there has been a lot of notable speculation that can be cited to specific sources in the media; even for 2010 there are some decent sources. Here, there are no sources at all and no evidence anyone but Wikipedia is even talking about this future election. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Senate terms are six years long, so the information within the article seems somewhat feasible. It simply needs references for the facts that it does have. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to point out the first afd on this article, which was universally kept. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not two cycles after the next one: the 2012 elections are the next elections for the senators elected in 2006. I could conceivably see deleting 2018 or 2024 elections, but not 2012. -- Charlene 05:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Skirts WP:CRYSTAL and some speculation needs to be removed, but otherwise given the nature of American politics an article 6 years ahead isn't unreasonable as it could be argued campaigning for then is already underway. 23skidoo 05:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the article consists of nothing but speculation. Every single entry, as far as I can see, contains a claim that a particular Senator "may retire." Not a single source is provided for any of these claims. The article arbitrarily lists any Senator over age 75 as "likely" to retire; no justification is given for this particular figure. This article smells a lot like original research. If it's to be kept, any unsourced claims will have to be removed. Removing all unsourced claims would mean an empty article, which would make it a candidate for speedy deletion. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hopefully this AFD will attract the attention of people who would be willing to expand the article. If it ends up being an empty article as a result then so be it and it will fall under a different set of criteria for deletion. 23skidoo 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Real planned elections (by constitutional law) that will directly affect all the 2006 Senate elections winners, whether they step down or run for re-election. --Oakshade 05:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This election does directly affect current Class I senators.  Must have some references to back up all the rampant speculation, though.  Sources can be found for some of the senators, and deleting the rest won't result in an empty article, though it may be mostly a shell.  If this said "2014", I'd obviously vote for deletion, but that article would be OK to start once the 2008 elections are decided and the landscape for Class II Senators is set for 6 more years.  --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as pointed out, this is the next election for 2006-elected or re-elected Senators. The intervening Senatorial elections in 2008 and 2010 will be for different Senators. I'm a bit unhappy with all the suggested redlinks, because most of those articles don't need to exist yet, but if these links are used to create them at least they will have a consistent format. The retirement speculation is pretty rampant for any older, multi-term Senator, so it will not be difficult to source this speculation, even though it really shouldn't be there without sourcing. Tag for references, and rein in excessively specific speculation. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep; This is only the next cycle after the one we are in; entries for future events one or two cycles in the future already have established precedence. --Mhking 13:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it has some useful information, but the section on Possible retiring Senators currently contains only unreferenced speculations and therefore must be removed. Max S em 14:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per Dhartung. It is useful. It for the re-election of current senators.
 * Keep per a lot of people above. I'd suggest that a good rule of thumb for Senate elections is no more than one election cycle for any current Senators - so right now we have 2008, 2010, and 2012, but no later. Natalie 23:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep recognizes an upcomming event--Sefringle 02:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Some Senators already have 2012 fundraising committees set up, per an article I added as a reference. Edison 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' as per Mhking. RogueNinja 16:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above, hopefully we will not need to have this discussion for a third time. Burntsauce 20:42, 30 March 2007 (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.