Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013


 * 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. There seems to be an adequately strong agreement that it's too soon for this article to exist to justify deletion. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Do we really need a page for election that is 4 years away? Ridernyc (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete In 2013, yes. Today, it is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Warrah (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Presuming there's some published speculation about candidates and such, I can't see a problem with having the article now. Everyking (talk) 05:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Can we at least swear in the new guy and let him get comfy in the office before we create an article about the next election? This is way too soon.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 06:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The exemption is clearly stated in WP:CRYSTAL for such articles, but this article is unrefed now. If this is OR, then delete it. Blodance (talk) 06:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:CRYSTAL violation. Like Everyking, presuming there's some published speculation about candidates and such, an article on such would meet WP:V.  Fine and dandy; except there isn't.  We shouldn't be advocating Keep based on information that hasn't been supplied and that research doesn't turn up.    Ravenswing  09:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I agree with Blodance: if it's cited speculation about an event that's likely to occur, then it's typically borderline acceptable, even with WP:CRYSTAL considerations. However, in this case there doesn't seem to be enough to substantiate that route at present.   Cocytus   [»talk«]  04:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's not really WP:CRYSTAL if there are citations and the event is certain to happen ("Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place... Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics.")  The available sources I found, however,, are pretty weak, but would improve the article. THF (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even though it technically is exempt from WP:CRYSTAL, it is way too distant into the future to be an article that isn't relying on a lot of predictions and guesses. This article will be in such a constant state of change that it will almost be news and not an article. There has to be limits about how far into the future we speculate on events. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 7 January 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.