Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate election in Virginia, 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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate election in Virginia, 2012[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nyttend declined a G4 speedy deletion on the grounds that the deleted article is different from this article. The reason for deletion is the same, however, because this is currently WP:CRYSTAL speculation. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Marcus Qwertyus 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that the creator of this article wrote it entirely from scratch; other than the topic of the article, there are no similarities between this version and the one deleted before — that's the sole reason that I declined the speedy. Nyttend (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A year's time hasn't made any difference. Basically, this comes down to the current officeholder will probably run for re-election, and some people from the opposing party might seek the nomination. I predict that the World Series will be played between the American League and National League champs in 2012. Mandsford 01:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) keep: On a 6-year cycle this certainly trumps WP:CRYSTAL only 2.0 years out, in that it would be significant OR to assume it will not take place. The problem is the lack of sources, but that is very easily remedied, without my needing to provide the links to prove it, since I've said it before on numerous similar AFDs. JJB 02:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Which criteria of WP:SK do you believe this article satisfies? SnottyWong ^babble 04:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the metaphoric rather than casuistic kind. The kind of brash, bold speedy that rhetorically sways the closer to recognize how poor the deletion arguments are, in the same way the deletion arguments are also largely rhetorical. But as for the facts-and-logic kind of speedy, per Crystal #1, it "is notable and almost certain to take place", "preparation for the event is [] already in progress", "examples of appropriate topics include the 2012 U.S. presidential election", and something "can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research". The point "speculation about it must be well documented" is WP:SOFIXIT even if the inserter was fully relying on WP:OR. It looks like a simple source list will change the deletionists' views, so that may turn up in a couple days. Jim Webb has $471,080 cash on hand for this race (click Virginia and 2010, though there is no 2010 VA Senate race). JJB 21:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Delete - There's no doubt that this event will happen. However, using that reasoning, we could create United States Senate election in Virginia, 2072. Articles that are created way too soon are a pet peeve of mine. There needs to be coverage of this election before an article can exist. There's no way anyone can accurately surmise who might even run in this election with any certainty at this point. Until candidates officially announce they are running, then adding their names to this article as candidates is pure WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. No matter how likely you think it is that the incumbent is going to run, there is no guarantee. SnottyWong ^prattle 04:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's a difference between 2012 and 2072. For 2012, it is already possible to talk about the possibilities, even before the 2010 election . In two weeks, after that election, it will be possible to talk more accurately, and for a position of this importance, the sources will do so. As for the next world series, surely sportwriters are already writing their expert opinions about who the AL and NL champions will be? I think in both cases it's reasonable to write an article here about the next event, and in some cases the one immediately following that. Neither politics nor baseball are wholly random. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the excellent reasoning of Mandsford. Come back in September of 2012 or so, when there is a definitive list of candidates, instead of what is there now. I'd wait for the republican primary election to have a final list of candidates (as in, certified by the election board, not speculated by pundits) before saying that this is ready for being recreated. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pure speculation. One of the "possible" Republican candidates (Bob McDonnell) is highly unlikely as his term as Virginia governor doesn't expire until January 2014. He will instead probably try to run for Senate in 2014 against Mark Warner, although that is still speculative. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 16:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per speculation, not because of crystal CTJF83 chat 04:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - within a week or so we will have the current crop of Senate races more or less concluded and the next cycle, ie 2012 will be in the headlines. For an article that seems "distant" only for a week or so, is it really necessary to delete it? SE7^Talk/_Contribs 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well there is no indication next Wed we will all of a sudden have the candidates for 2012 CTJF83 chat 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, this is just to far out (chronologically, not metaphysically) to be of any use of an article at this time. Too much crystal-ballery. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete except for the incumbent, mentions of the other potential candidates calls for total speculation. Bring this back only when we have declared candidates for the race. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:52, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Speculation on the part of reporters regarding potential candidates has precedent in other articles (e.g. Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012), and reliable sources are already starting to mention this particular election and the potential candidates. In June, the Washington Post speculated that the Republicans will field George Allen or Eric Cantor [1]. Two weeks ago, Politco said Allen is prepping for a run[2]. I acknowledge that there isn't much to report on right now and that the article would likely remain a stub for a little while longer. Location (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~WP:TOOSOON~~ WP:CRYSTAL. Some events are notable two years in advance, others are not. Senate races per state would fall under the latter. There's nothing notable to be said at the moment.--70.80.234.196 (talk) 03:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.