Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States Senate elections, 2012

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-01-02 08:52Z

[edit] United States Senate elections, 2012

United States Senate elections, 2012 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The group of people who were up for election in 2012 were up for election in 2006. This is six years away, all the senators listed could be retiring, no one is going to make an annoucment for years. No one's annouced whether there retiring or whether they could potentialy run. Who knows if Artur Davis of Alabama will run in 2012? 2008 is more for sure.. In conclusion the page is completely useless if it's 2012. Carpet9 23:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment If this ends in delete, I'd ask that it gets moved to a subpage so that it can be moved back when there are some sources. Or at the very least leave a notice on the talk page. Hopefully some editor will notice that and ask for a restoration. A lot of work went into this page, so there's no reason it needs to be duplicated when the page does become more desirable.--Kchase T 23:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - useful advance planning, appropriately caveated without crossing the line into "crystal ball" territory. It doesn't duplicate the 2006 elections article because some incumbents retired and some were defeated in 2006, and although the information in the 2012 article could be extrapolated from other pages, why should the reader have to when an editor has already usefully compiled it in this form? (N.B.: To the creator, don't push your luck and draft the 2018 page. :) ) Newyorkbrad 23:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Normally I would only support including a page for the next elections (in 2008 in this case), however as one third of the senators elected this year will be up for reelection then, I guess there's no harm in having the page up. TSO1D 01:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment actually, all of the Senators just elected will face re-election in 2012 unless they die or quit. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Jumping off what TSO1D said, this is the "next" election for this class of senators -- that is, we know what seats will be open and whose seat the new senators will be inheriting. Perhaps the "so-and-so may retire" parts of the "Races" section is too crystal ball-like, but the table of which senators will be up for re-election and the 2006 results aren't. SliceNYC (Talk) 02:34, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Much speculation about retiring congresscritters which could be borderline crystalballery, but beyond this I think the other "Keep" votes above have the right idea. --Dennisthe2 02:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. More important than individual Senators' futures is the question of which party holds the seat and how their state voted in the Presidential or other intervening elections. There are also likely links from the articles of lower-level politicians considering whether to run in the next election (2008 or 2010, depending on state) or this one. --Dhartung | Talk 08:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I think some of the content needs to be sourced, but the page itself is not objectionable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but fix the article. It contains good information for the future elections, but the use of WP:SS is terrible. Links to a series of not yet existing main articles!--Yannismarou 18:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

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.