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 no consensus. Black Kite 00:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Article is about an event in which, though scheduled to happen, we have no information about right now and is thus crystal ballism.TM 15:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has 7 references, a lead, and two sections of prose. If there are references on a future event, it ain't crystal ball. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The nominator has withdrawn (see below), so I'm striking the nomination comment, but because three other editors have called for deletion and have not given any indication of changing their minds, I am not closing the discussion at this time. --RL0919 (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the majority have voted to keep the article, and significant changes have been made to it, I move that the editors who recommended deleting the article remove it from the possible deletion list and the discussion be closed.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 22:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not how it works. AFD is not a vote, majority opinion is only interesting when it demonstrates the consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep:. The information in the lead is 100% factual and 0% crystal. There have been indications that each of those candidates will run, which are backed up by reliable sources. Also, this is WP:POINT by the nominator to get back at me for my edits on Tim Cowlishaw Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)}

I ask you to Assume good faith, Purplebackpack89. Without verifiable sources, the article is pure speculation and original research.--TM 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Namiba, you've just been edit warring on a page I edited, I call you on it, and within minutes, you PROD, then AFD an article I created. That's more than coincidence. If you did it, say, a week later, it'd be different Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Regardless of possible WP:POINT breaches, this is still an unsourced article about an event which hasn't happened yet. It contains no proper text outside of a short lead, the rest is just pictures of "Possible candidates" with no sources to back them up. See below. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have no problem with the topic of the article itself, just the lack of sources and content. If improved I will gladly withdraw the nomination.--TM 16:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely an improvement, but not quite enough. Four sources for twelve candidates still leaves eight pieces of original research. My other concern about a lack of actual facts in the text has yet to be addressed. I will consider retraction if a fact-based, textual article with little-to-no OR is created. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the pictures of potential candidates who either have expressed interest in a run for a different political office, or had no usable reference for a potential 2013 mayoral bid. These people should be added if future references can be found. The article now properly cites all information and should be kept.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work! Move to keep. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only fact is that the current mayor can't run for re-election because of term limits. A list of 12 "possible candidates" isn't enough to make an article upon three years before the scheduled primary. I don't see this is as a topic in 2010 or 2011, and probably not until December 2012 (assuming that the world doesn't end that month). Mandsford (talk) 16:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References from newspapers and political site have been added for numerous candidates. I urge retraction of your vote. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am sure there will be an article before election day. The first two sentences are a start. Information on "possible" candidates should be removed until a reliable source says they are that, or they announce their candidacies. Borock (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for now. WP:CRYSTAL sort of applies for the candidates, even if the election will be in 2013. However, without a list of candidates, I don't see a precedent yet. I say recreate it when the time is right - a year or so, maybe? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a 2012 Presidential election pratically the day after the 2008 one, and that was as much conjecture then as this is now, not to mention it was farther away from the actual election. Also, if this article is so bad, why did nobody care for six months? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Crystal clearly allows for this type of article: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This event is notable and there is virtually no chance it will not occur. Butros (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Butros, your point is taken. Reviewing, it's now also not an image gallery (bonus!). Changing !vote to keep as such. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep This article certainly needs to be cleaned up and include some citations. However, its absurd to delete this since we will soon have to recreate this article within a year.--Jkfp2004 (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since this AFD started, a whole section of prose has been added; as have seven references. The unreferenced tag is gone, and the OR tag could probably be removed as well Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Sure this article needs some improvement, but the race has already been discussed in the media and is relevant to Los Angeles politics. I would suggest removing the gallery, as it looks a bit tacky, and expanding it a bit (although it's already almost as long as the 2009 mayoral race article). Butros (talk) 04:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there should have been an effort to improve this article before it was put up for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Butros (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even further, this article is listed as "high-importance" for the the Southern California and Los Angeles (offshoots of WikiProject California) task forces. Butros (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An article about a municipal election that is taking place three years from now? No prejudice for recreating the article closer to 2013, but at the moment it is too premature. Warrah (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw by nom Good job to those who expanded the article and made it useful to Wikipedia.--TM 13:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but... There is enough sourced information--the date, the incumbent, the fact that he can't run due to term limits, one declared candidate, other possible candidates mentioned in the press--to warrant an early start of an article certain to be of importance later. Unsourced speculation should be rigorously kept out, however. I tagged a couple of such sentences.--agr (talk) 17:15, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The event is "notable and almost certain to take place", and appears to be sourced. --TorriTorri^{(Talk to me!)} 17:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - certain to take place, yes, but there is nothing substantial to say about this event now, and what little there is to say is speculative. Recreate in a year or so. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now. No substantial content yet, just sourced rumors. Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject of this article itself satisfies WP:CRYSTAL, as it is a notable event and is almost certainly going to take place. However, no info within the article passes WP:CRYSTAL...any list of candidates or political issues this far in advance is pure speculation. Without issues or candidates, it would be hard to even justify a stub. Bobby Tables (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To the three of you who just voted delete...by the same logic, the info at United States presidential election, 2012 is also speculation and the article should also be deleted. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have an argument that is more valid than hey, look over there!, I'm all ears. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want a reason, it's that the election has already recieved significant media coverage, and that its election to decide the leader of four million people. Remember that OTHERSTUFF isn't always an invalid argument, it can be used as part of an argument Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFF aside, United States presidential election, 2012 is more borderline in terms of WP:CRYSTAL since there are verifiable things taking place right now (the Census and resulting redistricting) that will materially affect the election. That article does contain a lot of speculation, but even without the cruft there's enough for an article. That isn't the case with Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobby Tables (talk • contribs) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• That's just hypocritical Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is nothing wrong with having this page. The speculative information is also natural. We have other pages that are chalk full of that sort of stuff anyways and they are still here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles full of chalk can make things very messy. Tarc (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Out of character for me a bit, since I like the Hammer, but I don't live in LA and I know about this kind of speculation, and there's plenty of media coverage about this particular election. One election out is a good guideline, and this seems to be within that range. Shadowjams (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But it needs to be policed to make sure everything is verifiable and speculation is stated as such--Tmckeage (talk) 21:57, 8 April 2010 (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.