Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamilton municipal election, 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 delete. Wizardman 22:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hamilton municipal election, 2010[edit]

Pure crystal balling. A list of "Potential candidates" for a local election that is still 2 years away. According to the provided sources, there won't be actual confirmed nominees until at least January 2010.Beeblbrox (talk) 04:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revisions have been made to adhere more closely to known facts (announcments of candidacies, issues, etc.). Also, please see Norfolk County municipal election, 2010 and Ottawa municipal election, 2010 which have existed for quite some time. If any further update is needed to save this page, please inform me of which wikipedia standards it does not meet. DaHamiltonian (talk) 1:28, 29 July 2008 (EDT)

Strong Keep Meets wikipedia standards, not crystal balling.

Comment The only part that seems like it's crystal balling is the issues section. Otherwise it seems accurate, and at some point the article should exist. I don't know whether it should exist already, but I believe the decision regarding U.S. presidential elections was that no articles should exist for elections beyond the first upcoming one. Theshibboleth (talk) 06:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, language like will be a major issue, will likely be ongoing, will be of particular concern to residents etc show clear original research in that they are predictions of future events, along with is expected to seek another term as mayor.. As for other,similar articles that is not generally considered a valid argument. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Once the Original Research and Crystalballing are removed, the article makes no claim of notability for this municipal election. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete The actual election almost certainly isn't going to be notable and this is pure crystal ball gazing. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Aside from the obvious crystal balling, there is no claim of notability for this election. BWH76 (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as crystal balling --T-rex 14:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stub I think it's small.. meets some standards. Just keep as a stub.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 08:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How, if I may ask, is there no claim of notability for this election? — [[User:DaHamiltonian (talk)|DaHamiltonian (talk)]] ([[User talk:DaHamiltonian (talk)|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DaHamiltonian (talk)|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 18:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply While I did not specifically mention notability in the nomination, I think I understand the point those 2 are trying to make. The article does not even give enough context to determine what province of Canada Hamilton is located in, it gives no indication of the size of Hamilton and no indication that this is anything more than a local election that will not affect anyone not living in Hamilton, and candidates won't even be confirmed for another year and a half. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have further revised the article, attempting to make it more factual and notable. From past experience, I know that, although candidates will not be confirmed for a year and a half, many people will begin announcing their intentions to stand in a few months, closer to the two year mark for the election. Hamilton is a city of nearly three quarters of a million people and one with a very heated political scene. I will again state that I believe this page is very relevant and will continue to be updated as the election draws nearer. DaHamiltonian (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply The point is that there really isn't any confirmed information to report here. You have stated what you think will be the relevant issues, and have stated that you believe this is a notable topic, but the sources you provide are an official government page that states that yes, an election will be held in two years, and some blogs, which are not considered reliable sources. You may be right about what the relevant issues will be in 2010, but predictions simply aren't appropriate content for an encyclopedia. And there is still no real information indicating why this future local election is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. There are literally thousands of local elections scheduled all over the world in the 2010, but very few, if any, of them are notable enough at this early date for an entry.Beeblbrox (talk) 06:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per wp crystal^MY♥_INchile 23:04, 31 July 2008 (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.