Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands mayoral election, 2020

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. The circumstances have changed since this article was nominated for deletion. The 2017 election has now taken place. Our common practice is that the next future notable election will have an article, as WP:CRYSTALBALL sets out as an example. As noted by respondents here, that says "future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"; we know this event is notable, as we already have the prior election, and it is almost certain to take place. Further, we also have the precedent of other AfDs, such as this one to guide us. Non-admin closure per WP:NAC #1. Note: This AfD was also combined with Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020, to which this closing rationale also applies. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands mayoral election, 2020[edit]

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

for exactly the same reasons. There are no sources so the speculation is not well documented. Domdeparis (talk) 10:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The previous mayoral election hasn't even taken place yet. there are no sources no candidates declared. this article fails WP:GNG and is clearly WP:TOOSOON. The only source provided deals with the upcoming 2017 election. creating pages is not a sort of competition or race to see who can be first. Why not create the 2024 2028 2032 elections too? Domdeparis (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

additional comment WP:CRYSTALBALL specifies that future events should be included but

" If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented."

there are no sources in this article so the speculation is not well documented. Domdeparis (talk) 10:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: sources Both articles have sources the West Midlands article has ITV (last sentence) and the Greater Manchester article has Gov.uk (in the section "Devolution revolution"). How is that "not well documented"? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 18:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure about this one. I think Domdeparis has made several valid points. On the other hand generally there is an article about the next election in the UK for regional contests. Equally after Friday we will know the result of the 2017 elections in both areas and there may start to be discussion of what happens next time that could be used. Dunarc (talk) 11:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now think it should be Keep It is now the next election and I think there is enough evidence it is notable.Dunarc (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We don't have "election after next articles". Number 5 7 11:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems that the general consensus is that we tend to have articles for the next local election, but not the one after. Taking that on board, I would argue that this article was a case of WP:TOOSOON, when it was created two days ago, but right now, it is the next election, so therefore it is no longer a case of WP:TOOSOON. CarlDurose (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The results will be out this evening. Also my reason for creating Greater Manchester mayoral election, 2020 was to inform readers that whoever wins tonight will serve three years rather than four, to bring it into line with the London mayoral election, 2020. The 2020 London Mayoral Election article was created in July 2016 and I note with interest that there is no AfD attached to it. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

STOP PRESS: Just found this: WP:Articles for deletion/London Assembly election, 2020 back in February this year. The result was keep. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 10:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' The election results are in and Andy Street is Mayor, the election might be three years away but having the article makes people more aware that it is only a three year term, rather than the four it will be from 2020 onwards. We have "next election" categories even for the 2022 General Election, so I don't see why that should remain and this shouldn't. I feel based on past crieteria it doesn't qualify for deletion. (Z2a (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our usual practice is to keep articles on next scheduled elections. WP:CRYSTAL specifically names future elections as appropriate topics to cover. AusLondonder (talk) 04:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not much point in deleting it, if it will just get recreated in a few years time. G-13114 (talk) 08:47, 10 May 2017 (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.