Deletion of Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections

Comment: I knew someone was going to nominate this for deletion. As XOREaster, Robert Mueller, Christopher Wray, and Dan Coats have said, interference in the 2020 elections is already happening. I have more sources to incorporate into this. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections:  does not apply. &ndash;&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:FUTURE)

Comment: It's not staring into a |crystal ball to write about something that has already started. (To elaborate upon a https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/russia-trump-election-interference/index.html reference already in the article, {{tq|"They are doing it as we sit here. And they expect to do it during the next campaign"}} https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/mueller-no-russia-exoneration-for-trump-despite-his-claims/2019/07/24/428d5a0c-ae85-11e9-9411-a608f9d0c2d3_story.html. And it's not speculation on our part to report that {{tq|Mueller expressed fears that hostile government interference in US elections, and political candidates failing to report it, may become “the new normal”}} https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-hearing-special-counsel-testifies-trump-russia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Editors in favor of deleting have raised two main criticisms: #1 , on the grounds that this constitutes speculation (Theoallen1, JFG, Blumpf); #2 That the information is redundant to Foreign electoral intervention (Dream Focus). Let me address each separately. ''Argument #1 rebuttal'': First, while per  it is policy that {{tq|Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions}},  also clearly states that {{tq|Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included}}. Moreover,  states that {{tq|1.Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place.}} Given that the election is an expected future event and that Russian election interference is expected to continue in 2020 according to the intelligence community,  would actually be argument to keep the article, and not delete it. But I dispute that  applies here, like several other editors have done before me, on the grounds that Russian interference in the 2020 election is already happening. That's because the term election isn't strictly to be interpreted as only election day, but also as the campaigns that precede it, the nominations, and political processes that culminate in the election; in short, election stands for election cycle. The Russian interference in the 2016 United States election article can be a good illustration of this point. Let's now turn to examples which show that this event is not happening in the future, but as we speak. (1) When former FBI director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, one of the foremost experts on Russian interference in the 2016 election, was asked by congressman Hurd at a hearing on July 25 at the House Intelligence Committee whether the 2016 interference was an isolated attempt by Russia or whether he found evidence that they would interfere again, Mueller stated under oath that "They're doing it as we sit here". https://edition.cnn.com/2019/07/24/politics/russia-trump-election-interference/index.html (see also 4:22). (2) FBI director Christopher Wray also stated on July 24 that "My view is until they stop they haven't been deterred enough", implying that the Russians had not stopped interfering. https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/07/24/russia-intent-on-interfering-with-us-elections-fbi-director-says-a66547 Wray had previously stated on April 26 that disinformation by Russia has "pretty much continued unabated", stating that "That is not just an election-cycle threat. It is pretty much a 365-day-a-year threat." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/us/politics/fbi-russian-election-interference.html (3) DNI director Dan Coats also listed political interference second in his list of threats while at a congressional at a January 29 hearing about worldwide threats, notably releasing a joint written threat assessment that reads "Russia's social media efforts will continue to focus on aggravating social and racial tensions, undermining trust in authorities, and criticizing perceived anti-Russia politicians".https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-intel-agencies-russia-and-china-plotting-to-interfere-in-2020-election/ar-BBSTYZ6 This multitude of examples highlights that national security experts believe that Russian interference in 2020 elections is underway. If Delete supporters still think that  applies here, I believe that they will have to confront the fact that Russian interference in 2020 is near-certain based on the expertise of the national security and intelligence community, which fulfills the {{tq|almost certain to take place}}  standard. ''Argument #2 rebuttal'': the claim that information present in the current article is a duplicate of what is found in Foreign electoral intervention can be invalidated by simply looking at the latter article - there is no mention of 2020, yet. That is because the article deals with foreign electoral intervention in multiple countries by multiple foreign entities over the course of over 150 years. This means that each interference gets a few lines of content and is later expanded upon in a dedicated article. One can see that the content found in the Russian interference in the 2020 United States elections is already at least triple the size of the portion allotted to each interference in the article. While a small heading for 2020 interference is surely welcome, it should not act as a substitute for the article here. A word of conclusion: this does not mean that the article is bulletproof in many ways - as other have pointed out, some material such as Iranian interference may be removed and NPOV should be checked given the development of the issue, but those are best addressed in the Talk page and not in the AfD. Hence, the clear answer to me: the article is a current event which passes WP:GNG, and even  if it is not current as other have argued
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:FUTURE)

Comment: Obviously notable and relevant subject for an article. Follow 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: per , much as we keep pages on major candidacies and ballot campaigns for upcoming elections
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: per {{U|Pilaz}}. This is the subject of |significant coverage and commentary in |reliable sources. It's not in the future - Robert Mueller ''swore'' it's ''going on in July 2019
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: Whether this is actually happening or we merely have political scaremongering (or in extremis even if this were a conspiracy theory) - enough es (and notable US political figures) are discussing this - passing GNG. One could lament Wikipedia editors spending so much time on speculative future American political issues (and on this issue being rehashed over and over again - one could perhaps argue for a merge to a general Russian interference article (as opposed to having a separate one for each country/election year)) - however it does pass Wikipedia notability thresholds
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: The first four sources in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_interference_in_the_2020_United_States_elections&oldid=908173001 the current version of the article, all specifically about Russian interference in the 2020 US elections, published in ''Reuters'', ''The New York Times'', ''Time'', and ''NBC News'', and another later source on the same topic from ''Newsweek'', make a clear case for  notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)