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. - Mailer Diablo 08:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

114th United States Congress

[edit]

I'm somewhat unsure of this article. Sure, the 114th Congress will happen, but it won't start until 2015. There won't be any reliable information on who's running, who will be there, etc. for at least another five years. PTO 02:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reason to create this stub so far in advance. We might want to get rid of the other future Congress stubs too. It's sort of like creating a stub for the 44th President of the United States (To be Determined in 2008). SkipSmith 03:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It would be against common sense to delete it if maybe it was sooner, but 8 years away is a long time. It's not really cluttering anything to much, because we people search they can do so by numbers or category to figure out that this hasn't existed yet. Kopf1988 03:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the fact that it's almost 8 years away means that we have to see this as crystal-ballism. - Richard Cavell 04:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT a crystal ball. Too early to create such an article. We have to wait for a while before creating this. Terence 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, this Congress will exist, but there is nothing useful that can be said about it at this time. --Metropolitan90 05:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT a crystal ball. —Ocatecir ^Talk 06:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Metropolitan90; WP:NOT a crystal ball. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until a meaningful discussion can be had about the 114th congress. Orderinchaos78 10:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the point of deleting it? It is not consuming any resources, it is a valid topic, and although wikipedia is not a crystal ball, the article is just a stub and does not make any prophesies.Sylvain1972 13:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The stuff that's on the page now happens every year. None of it is unique. All of the House is elected every two years, and one third of the Senate is elected every two years. There's nothing special about this particular Congress. PTO 13:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but that's not a reason to delete it.Sylvain1972 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete - the article, at this point, is void of any real information. It should be recreated when real infromation becomes available. -- Whpq 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL as mentioned above. Right now this article is merely a placeholder and will remain a placeholder for several years. Nothing that can be said about it except that it will more than likely exist. No reason to keep this. Arkyan 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ==> WP:CRYSTAL. When recreating the article, it's easier to start from scratch than with a whole lot of fairly generic discussion. Suggestion when recreated? Link back to United States Congress. Carl Turner 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources and failing WP:NOT#CRYSTAL, a little to early for this article.Telly addict 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, how long is it until the 114th Congress? :) --Cremepuff222 (talk, review me!) 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. —dima/s-ko/ 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. We have plenty of time a few years from now to start this article. —Realkyhick 22:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:SNOW because this article ain't got a snowball's chance in hell of surviving this deletion debate. One good reason for getting rid of it is that someone might slip up and get confused looking for some other Congress. No need for people to stumble over this article again and again for years to come. By the way, we don't even know what the districts will look like when this Congress is elected. Out! Noroton 02:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: for all we know, Bush could disband Congress and impose martial law tomorrow, or an asteroid could flatten D.C., etc., and the 114th Congress will never exist. Not to mention that everything is going to be redrawn after the 2010 census. Krimpet 03:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. GreatGianaSister 04:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We also have 113th_United_States_Congress and 112th_United_States_Congress, which would be beginning in 2013 and 2011. If this article is deleted, as seems almost certain, these other two should go as well, for the same reasons as this one. 111th_United_States_Congress possiblyy too, although it starts in 2009 which is at least not a ridiculously long time away. The current US congress is the 110th, and the elections for the 111th will take place in 2008, the campaigning some time before that, so it might not be completely out of line to keep the 111th article. --Xyzzyplugh 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial futurism. There is nothing to say and won't be for a long time. (I also support deletion of the others in this series. They are closer in time but still pointless until the event actually occurs. The campaigning for the 111th Congress will be documented in articles about the campaign. Even there, we have nothing to say about the actual Congressional Session yet.) Rossami (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. I'm looking for a reliable source that says this congress will even come to be. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This subject is notable. Deleting this now would be a waste of time. Why delete something when it's virtually guaranteed that the article will get recreated? Mr. Berry 06:45, 21 March 2007 (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.