Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welsh Assembly Election 2007

On 1 Aug 2004, Welsh Assembly Election 2007 was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was a split decision. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the article is kept for now. Rossami 05:11, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Any reason we have to keep something about an election that won't happen for another three years? - Lucky 6.9 00:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)  This article deals with a future event. The information in this article may be speculative in nature and subject to drastic change.
 * So we won't forget to duplicate it in 2007? Delete, as with all other predictions. Geogre 01:48, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. DannyBoy | Talk 02:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's quite reasonable, and entirely encyclopedic, to write about future events for which a concrete plan exists.  We have, after all, articles for stuff like 2010 Winter Olympics.  This article does not contain, nor has it ever contained, specuative predictions. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 03:39, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. As Finlay McWalter has pointed out, it's not the only encyclopedic, forward-looking article in Wikipedia. Another good example of one is U.S. presidential election, 2008, which has not happened yet, but there is already enough information available for it to have the beginnings of an worthy article. And for that matter, U.S. presidential election, 2004 technically hasn't happened yet either, though, granted, the campaigning is going on now.  While I agree with Geogre that Wikipedia articles about scheduled future events should emphatically not be making predictions, I am pleased to see Wikipedia being forward-looking in these cases. Kevyn 10:45, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, contains encylopedic info on the changed electoral rules etc. One problem I do see is that this election is scheduled for 2007, but (correct me if I am wrong) could take place earlier, if the assembly dissolves itself. This information could equally well be included National_Assembly_for_Wales in a subsection Elections to the Welsh Assembly or similar.--Ianb 11:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * As you say, Ianb. I call it a prediction because it is a prediction.  Frankly, anything set in the future is predictive.  "US General election of 2008" is speculative.  Even "US General election of 2004" is speculative, though no one would have thought so a year ago.  If a placeholder needs to remain, it should remain elsewhere, and not as a lemma for something that will only clog the space when the real event occurs and simply can't be searched for. Geogre 13:28, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it's a firm schedule. Unlike the westminster parliament, the welsh parliament can't choose when its elections occur, they're on a largely fixed timetable, like the US Presidential elections. -- Finlay McWalter |  Talk 13:57, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Also propose creating a template, to be applied to articles covering major events more than 6 months in the future. (Compare  .)
 * --Benc 03:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Delete - This could and should be handled in other articles. Otherwise we'll get articles about campaign finance changes in 2008 (likely to be obe by then), China's reaction to the next Taiwan election (again, likely to be entirely different situation by then), or other equally useless predictions that do not need to be articles. -  T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  14:58, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I would say to ditch this article by putting the information into the previous elections page (2003). However this is only becasue the page has a lack of any real new information, most of it would be covered by the 2003 version.  However as already stated this should then be applied to the 2008 US presidential elections and in fact any event of which there are not enough current facts to make it a worthwhile addition on it's own.  As soon as candidates are begu to be named then by all means it can be recreated (for both), until then get rid of both (that beginnings of a good article on the 2008 presidency elections is pure speculation and hypothesising until actual facts are known, not simply a list of who the author thinksa re potential candidates, that is a POV not fact). --- Hackerjack
 * Is that a "delete"? - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  17:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I think one question that could help resolve this is whether this is already an ongoing event. For example, the 2008 Olympics has already begun planning, organizing, and layout of the site- there are actual, physical events and major monetary expenditure. So, it's not just a prediction, it's an existing project. Therefor, it makes sense to have an entry for it- even if the Games never actually occur because a giant geranium sprouts up, turns carnivorous, and devours the continent, it's still notable now, for the magnitude of the project, and the debate surrounding it. Similarly, if the 2007 election is an ongoing event, consisting of more than just an occasional meeting, but has significant budget, staff, etc assigned to work on it- then it's probably worth keeping. Unfortunately, I'm not in striking distance of Cardiff, so I can't check. -FZ 18:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't imagine the campaign trail has yet started, with the generals in 2005 or 2006 (it seems that the Labour government want to go for the former, making the start of May a likely date) taking precedence. However, it is still a perfectly valid event, and if events in 2010 can get in, then 2007 can also do it.  As stated previously, the election dates are not at the discretion of the Assembly.  Force majeure excepted, this will almost certainly happen on Thursday 3 May 2007.  Given this firm information, I would suggest keep given the potential for new information in 2005 and 2006.  Anonymous user in Cardiff 00:20, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep -- there's nothing controversial in the article, and the election appears in the Electoral Commissions' timetable of upcoming UK elections. Barring unexpected catastrophe, this election will take place within one month of the fourth anniversary of the last election in 2003. -- Arwel 12:11, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)