Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate special election in New York, 2010

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 per WP:SNOW. WP:CRYSTAL permits articles about scheduled or expected future events if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. This article falls into that category. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate special election in New York, 2010[edit]

Topic inappropriate for an encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. See WP:NOT#JOURNALISM and WP:NOTABILITY. WP is not the place for spot news, for tracking current events such as contests in sports or politics, celebrity gossip, or "human interest" (e.g., child has fallen down a well, here's the latest on rescue efforts). Except in rare cases, encyclopedias should not have articles on events that haven't happened yet. Some of the information in the lead to this article may be appropriately merged with an article on, say, New York State congressional delegations. Hurmata (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hurmata, please do not try to delete 95% of the article's content, as you did with this edit. Let commenters here see the full article as it exists, and decided for themselves on the merits of the AfD. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. We have many, many articles on upcoming political elections, including for example 37 articles in Category:United States Senate elections, 2010 about 2010 Senate elections (both regular and special). We have many articles about campaigns in progress: for example, all 32 of the 2008 presidential election campaign articles in Category:Campaigns in the United States presidential election, 2008 were written as those campaigns were happening (they then get further revised after the campaigns are over and additional sources are available on what happened). Furthermore, most of this United States Senate special election in New York, 2010 article in question contains a description of something that has already happened, the appointment process to replace Clinton as senator, which concluded today with Paterson's choosing of Gillibrand. This was a major event, heavily covered in the mainstream news media (as you can see from the cites) that featured many campaign-like developments and the involvement of well-known figures such as Caroline Kennedy. There is absolutely no reason to delete any of this. One might argue that the appointment history should be placed in an article of its own, rather than be combined with the subsequent special election, but at the time I and others felt that it made more sense to keep them together (since one leads to the other) and not have an extra article. As for the notion that Wikipedia doesn't track current events, that might be true of conventional encyclopedias, but is not true here; all the pages have a navigation link to Portal:Current events for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Unquestionably notable, well-sourced, comprehensive article. There is a mountain of precedent for an article like this, and I am amazed that this one has been brought here. This nomination makes absolutely no sense and should be closed. Tvoz/talk 05:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Tvoz and Wasted Time R. LotLE×talk 07:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, strong keep - per everyone above. We have plenty of articles on upcoming elections, and this is a decent article - just looking at the refs, this has 47. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous non-admin closure reverted per WP:NAC as there were not six votes for keeping and the process had not gone on for at least one full day. Jclemens (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not only does this pass WP:CRYSTAL, it's parent article is actually cited as an example of the type of article that is allowed. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 08:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Deleting it makes no sense at all.—Markles 14:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. As my NAC has been reverted, I'll repeat my comments from there. Near-future elections are listed in WP:CRYSTAL as a specific example of the kind of article that we should have about future events. On that basis, there really are no policy-based grounds to delete this extremely well-sourced article about a clearly notable event. JulesH (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. per WP:SNOW. This article clearly passes WP:CRYSTAL, and we already have an article on a similar topic in my home state. Jonathan321 (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep: per above. We have plenty of similar articles, and have had plenty previously. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and Strong Keep: Why is anyone nominating this article for deletion??? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2009 (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.