Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrew, no delete !votes exist. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump[edit]

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

Why do we need an article for something that may not happen at all? As soon as there are results of election and president elect is know, there is a reason for such article. Now, it does not look logical. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as User:E.M.Gregory eloquently stated in Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, "presidential transitions are a topic of significant and growing notability" while User:ALPolitico said "article subject is noteworthy, especially since the 2010 law regarding transition plans and teams" and User:The C of E pertinently noted that "this was something that the government felt was important enough to invest a good deal of time and money into so it appears to me to meet the GNG with the RSes that cover it." LavaBaron (talk) 12:59, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LavaBaron, didn't we have an AFD on this article a couple of months ago?E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC) I guess I was thinking of this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for all the reasons laid out here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. User:Arthistorian1977, would you be willing to look at the Romney AFD? and consider re-considering? because sometimes we don't need to dance the same set twice.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination, yet personally think it does not worth an article at this stage. Probably, till after the election. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, after actually thinking twice, it will be probably worth to have a 'Planned presidential transition after 2016 election' article, since a lot of information in both Trump and Clinton article is duplicate. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 14:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Presidential transitions are a matter of public importance and media scrutiny, and cost large amounts of taxpayers' money. I would be grateful if, on the same grounds, my article, Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton, which has been nominated for speedy deletion, were to be saved. Specto73 (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2016 (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.