Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Latvian parliamentary election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Good rename yandman 10:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Latvian parliamentary election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
No such election is confirmed and therefore the article is pure speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --SpeedKing (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We'll call it "Next Latvian parliamentary election" for now, then. Just moved it; not speculation any more now. —Nightstallion 19:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, this article would become unnecessary if there wouldn't be any early elections until 2010. Some of this information might be added to a new article about the economic/political crisis of Latvia, however, an article about a possible (not a definite) election doesn't fit in Wikipedia. --SpeedKing (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There definitely will be an election in Latvia by 2010, so this article should by definition exists. Due to the strong possibility that it may be held earlier due to the financial crisis, the article about the next election currently includes information about this issue, but it's encyclopedic either way. —Nightstallion 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, this article would become unnecessary if there wouldn't be any early elections until 2010. Some of this information might be added to a new article about the economic/political crisis of Latvia, however, an article about a possible (not a definite) election doesn't fit in Wikipedia. --SpeedKing (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The next general election of a country is highly notable whether or not it is due to take place this year. However, a lot of the article seems to be subjective or opinion, so it will need serious attention to meet standards of verifiability. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I write lots of articles on future elections, and usually (as in this case, too) try to have every sentence sources, so no worries there. ;) —Nightstallion 22:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per possible WP:CBALL. But feel free to revive it if this election does materialise. --Artene50 (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This election is a fact, the only question is whether 2009 or 2010 -- as I've changed the article title to reflect the still-open question of in which year it will take place, I don't see how CRYSTAL applies. —Nightstallion 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, BTW. —Nightstallion 15:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - it is likely/probable/well-soucred, so not pure speculation prohibited by WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 21:14, 2 March 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.