Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There is a clear preponderance of delete arguments and while several of them may be discounted for various reasons, the consensus clearly favours deletion. I understand that some of the article's defenders may disagree with me, and would invite them to open a DRV if they wish as I have carefully considered this closure and do not intend to reverse it. Of course, the deletion holds true only through 2012. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2016

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Article is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Yes, it will happen, but it is entirely speculation and it is not significantly documented. United States presidential election, 2012 was not created until the day of 2008's election, and even that contains fantastical speculation - an election still eight years away is really pushing it. There are no facts; even Obama hasn't said anything - that's only assumed. I will also point you to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), which was only 4 years before the event.

Any and all hypotheses made by the media is complete conjecture, and none refer specifically to 2016. An article from a reliable source is surmising that Jeb Bush may run for the Senate and "it's fair to assume he's also now open to a presidential bid, either in 2012 or 2016, when the Senate term would end." Does that really mean it should be listed in a 2016 article? The reference for Gillibrand says nothing about her and 2016. The ref for Jindal says "Think a few years ahead (even eight years ahead to the 2016 election) and think about:" That should be listed in the 2012 article, not 2016. Whatever happens in 2012 is crucial in what will happen later. And as said in the previous AFD, nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Obama was an unknown then, and 8 years before 2000 George Bush had never been elected to anything. Reywas92Talk 19:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- As was stated in the previous afd (which was what, less than 2 weeks ago? Come on), the intent WP:CRYSTAL is to prevent editors from doing their own speculation as to future events. However, since reliable sources are doing plenty of their own speculation, an article on the topic is perfectly viable. The article could probably use some cleanup, but most articles could, quite frankly), but that is not, never was, and doubtfully ever will be a reason for deletion. Umbralcorax (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the article is mostly pointless, but it's even more pointless to keep arguing about it every 2 weeks. What we really need here is a clear policy on upcoming elections (beyond "well documented speculation"). Personally I'd support only permitting articles on immediately upcoming scheduled elections (as well as the exceptionally notable). But absent an agreed upon guideline, I concede that there are legitimate arguments for the existance of the article -- although I trust that everyone agrees that it requires significant work! LSD (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I started a discussion on exactly this point on the talk page for the article under discussion. Feel free to join in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danaman5 (talk • contribs) 15:36, 28 January 2009
Umbralcorax, I suggest you read the second paragraph of the deletion reasoning at the top. Yes, there are sources, but are they appropriate for the article, specifically refer to 2016, or even support the text of the article? I think not. Timmeh! 02:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with LSD on the point that we do need a clear policy on upcoming elections. However, this does seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. The article does cite reliable sources that speculate about 2016, and it would therefore seem to meet the requirements. However, almost all of the cited articles only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or two of speculation on it, while some even state that "it’s practically impossible to tell at this juncture who might run in 2016." Another source admits that its speculative candidate for 2016 is even unlikely to run (Jeb Bush). In fact, it looks that half the sources don't even support the article text they're cited for. Sure, there are some reliable sources that speculate about 2016, even if only in passing. However, even if there is speculation, I don't believe there is a significant amount of well documented speculation. I say delete for now per CRYSTAL and create some kind of policy on upcoming elections as LSD proposed. Timmeh! 20:16, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also wish to bring up another point made by someone in the last AFD: "The creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails WP:CSB." Timmeh! 20:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think Timmeh hit this on the nail. All the sources agree it is too early to speculate, and only mention a few words like "this person could run in 2012 or 2016". All the sources will be just like that, so I say that we just use this as a redirect for now, and at the earliest recreate after the 2012 primaries. Rockyobody (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'KeepPeople start planning early, and the refs added reflect it. Per WP:CRYSTAL, events that are almost certain to be held merit articles,and the example they give of something too far to be reasonable is the 2028 election. Thus, both this and the 2020 and 2024 elections would be reasonable topics. Speculation can be notable, even based on lack of firm data--we cant do the speculation, but if others do we can report it. DGG (talk) 22:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, your preference to keep the article is based on the assumption that there is a substantial amount of well documented speculation by reliable sources. However, there is not. A few of the sources cited don't support the text in the article. At least one other asserts itself that the possibility that it mentions of the specific candidate running in 2016 is extremely slim. Yet another claims that it's just about impossible to tell who will run in 2016. The rest (2 or 3) only mention the 2016 election in passing and are extremely vague in their speculation. Timmeh! 23:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that you are making an overly literal reading of WP:CRYSTAL when you say that it sanctions the 2020 and 2024 elections as reasonable topics. The 2028 election is just used as an example of an election that is too far out for an article. I've never seen any speculation on who might run in 2020 or 2024, and I doubt that you could find me a single article if I asked you to. As I said above, even the speculation that is cited in the 2016 article barely qualifies as speculation.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timmeh asked me to revisit my comment, but i just feel all the stronger about what I said. In politics, speculation is part of the subject matter. That's what politicians talk about, what newspapers report, and the basis for articles here. It just has to be published in a reliable place, and about half the refs in the article even at present are very good standard RSs. If Time thinks it appropriate to speculate over this election, what they print about it makes such speculations notable. As for Danamah's comment, the next election but one is a very reasonable time span for such things. I could argue yet one further, but I agree that as we get further out than this it becomes more uncertain. The election will be held, and it will be an event of world importance. There are RSs talking about it. What more could possibly be needed? DGG (talk)
Well, there really isn't well-documented and valid speculation cited in the 2016 election article, as WP:CRYSTAL requires of future event articles. As I've said, some of the sources only speculate that "Bob Smith may run in a future election, possibly 2012 or 2016," and the article assumes that the source is speculating that Bob Smith will run or is planning to run in 2016, which is just not true and is too vague anyway. If you look through the sources, you'll see that many don't even support the text in the article. Even the Time article says, after mentioning a presidential run would come after a Senate run, that Bush is unlikely to run for the Senate (and in fact he's since said he won't run); therefore, if he won't run for the Senate, according to the article, he wouldn't run for President. That would make the Time source on Jeb Bush running an inappropriate one to have in the article. Also, as another source does, simply showing a list of possible contenders for president in either 2012 or 2016 without any reasoning is much too vague to have any place in the article. Timmeh! 01:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A legitimate encyclopedia should not be reporting on the speculation of upcoming elections, that's the job of the news media. There currently is no good reason for keeping this USA centric nonsense around. RMHED (talk) 22:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So we should then remove all articles on all US elections? They're all US-centric. And once a newspaper reports something, that's a source. our rule is not to anticipate the media. DGG (talk) 00:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on elections that have already happened are perfectly legitimate fodder. Articles about future elections should be left to the news media. Just because a newspaper reports on something doesn't make that something a legitimate subject for an encyclopedia. RMHED (talk) 20:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am very curious as to why this deletion request for the 2012 article (back in late 2008) was passed with absolutely no opposition, while this one, which should be much less controversial, as it is much earlier in relation to 2016 than it was to 2012 when that article was deleted, has some opposition. Can anybody for keeping this article tell us what has changed since that other AFD that merits keeping this article? Timmeh! 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps it didn't have evidence of notability, as this one does? A strict following of WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL would see this article kept, because of the sources available. However, I think this is one instance where strict following of the rules should defer to WP:Common sense, given that there is little informational value to be had even though the subject is notable and not crystal balling. For that reason, I won't be making a suggestion one way or the other this time. I'm just here to note that those who voted keep last time were following the rules closely... perhaps too closely. Ryan Paddy (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Timmeh, what has changed since late 2008 is that we've experienced the fevered pitch reached during the climax of the 2008 election, the election of the first African-American president, the collapse of the Republican party... and thus, the ensuing skyrocketting interest in politics in general and future elections in particular that has developed as a result. It's a very different ballgame than it was a few months ago--and, perhaps by coincidence, fewer radical inclusionists were involved in the last AfD. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have no view as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. But discussion of events that are highly dependent on nearly eight years of other events need to be couched carefully to avoid making logical errors or gazing into balls. See this diff to see the pitfalls of loose thinking / writing on such topics. If Obama wins in 2012 but with a different VP, or if he wins with Biden but Biden doesn't serve out his full term, or if he wins and Obama doesn't serve out his full term, there would be at minimum a replacement vice president who could stand as an incumbent. These are not far-fetched scenarios (I'm not even considering wild ideas such as further amendments to the Constitution that would make it possible for a two-term president to seek a third.) Bongomatic 03:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That is yet another reason to delete the article. Just about anything could happen by 2016. I could list several more scenarios than those you made examples of. There is just no way to make the article abide by WP:CRYSTAL until at least 2012 because of the infinite number of huge changes that could happen before then and because of the lack of well-documented speculation by reliable sources that supports the article text. Timmeh! 03:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just too tenuously sourced. I'm not adverse to an article written on published speculation, but this is mostly speculation based on published statements, which is a very different animal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 10:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Any violation of wp:Crystal is not "blatant" it's just that sometimes some editors put some violative content in the article. The article is not, nor does it need to be, violative of wp:Crystal.—Markles 11:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There really is no well-documented or published speculation in this article or cited by it, as WP:Crystal requires. I doubt you could find much if any published speculation on the content. This is not mentioning that it does blatantly violate WP:CSB. A question I posed before, but maybe you could answer is why nobody objected to this AFD which was only four years before the event instead of seven like this one. Timmeh! 13:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How does something "fail" or "blatantly violate" a WikiProject? You do realize that WP:CSB is a WikiProject, not a policy or guideline?! You might as well say that this article blatantly violates WP:FOOTY because it doesn't talk about soccer! The way to counter systemic bias is to create articles on subjects which tend to be ignored because of that bias. If you can find reliably-sourced speculation on the Swedish general election, 2014, for example, by all means create that article to counter our America-centric bias! That is what WP:CSB is explicitly about. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what crystal-balling is all about. Just because one expects it to happen does not mean that there is anything informative to say about it. One might as well write an article guessing which current elementary school students who might be running for President in 2036. Mandsford (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. — Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 18:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The facts are that many reliable sources have been speculating about potential candidates in 2016. Thus an article documenting those speculations is appropriate per WP:CRYSTAL. If there is speculation not based on reliable sources than it should be removed, but there is plenty of reliably-sourced speculation for an article to exist on this subject. DHowell (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there really? The creators of the article couldn't seem to find more than one or two which mention the election in a sentence or two. Also, why do you think this AFD was deleted without opposition only four years out from the election? Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: there are now 9 or 10 reputable sources (although one would be plenty, IMHO). As for previous election AfD's...they have little relevance because of the extraordinary coverage of the 2008 election, the amount of speculation by RSs has skyrocketted. Obviously, interest in future elections is consequently hightened. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Timmeh and WP:CRYSTAL. Blubberboy92 (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources discussing the subject exist - we are not to judge the quality or the utility of such speculation. As for notability, go to Google and type in "2016 presidential election your favorite candidate here" and you will get thousands of hits. Joshdboz (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The number of those hits that are actually relevant and reliable sources are very few if any. There just isn't well documented speculation on the subject yet. Timmeh! 12:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds do you deem The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal to be irrelevant and unreliable? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. You're misinterpreting my point. None of those sources have any articles devoted to the 2016 election, or even more than a sentence or two in an article about something else related to presidential politics. Timmeh! 02:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I get your point. A little bit of well-documented speculation isn't good enough in your opinion. Fine. I have a different opinion, and so do a lot of other editors. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A little bit of well-documented speculation" is an oxymoron. Well documented means many pundits/reliable sources have seriously speculated about it. If there is only "a little bit," then it is not well documented. Timmeh! 02:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last I checked, "well" was a qualitative adjective, not a quantitative measurement. The sources are good, so the documentation is done well. Do you think it's impossible to have a small well-done steak or a well-made compact car? "Well-documented" is not the same as "widely-documented"...and anyway, you haven't set a threshold on how much documentation you think constitutes "well-documented". With ten current sources, I think this article is rapidly becoming both well- and widely-documented. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article will exist and will be well sourced. Why set a threshold for the first source? That just makes things difficult. We want to collect as much information (based on secondary sources) as possible, and we want new editors to help do it. Remove inappropriate content by all means, but this article should remain at least as a stub. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, of course it will exist and be well sourced. That's not what's in dispute. Right now, it's not well sourced and there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it. Timmeh! 12:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't delete for "not well sourced", we delete for "unsourceable". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that, hence my words, "there really isn't well documented speculation by reliable sources for it." Right now, almost eight years before the election, there are no sources that have articles dedicated to the 2016 election. In four years, there will be a great deal of speculation, but right now there is almost none. Timmeh! 01:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you so eager to delete? The sources we've got are fine. Yes, they're short, yes they're few and far between. So what? If the entire article were unsourced, then that would be grounds for deletion. If *most* of the article were unsourced, you might have a point. But can you point to a single thing in this article that is actually wrong? No. Is there a single thing that is unsourced? At this point, I don't think so. So, this all comes down to a gut feeling that it's "too soon". Well, you may be right, but you should tell that to the pundits who are speculating. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no sources for Jindal or Romney. Also, anything could happen between now and 2016. Obama could refuse to run for a second term. He could be unable to run for some other reason (impeachment, death). He could lose reelection in 2012. All of these very possible scenarios would dramatically change the field of candidates for 2016. Any speculation right now is more likely than not to be proved completely incorrect within any number of years. No speculation done now could possibly have any facts to back it up, and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that should only contain facts or conclusions based on facts. Timmeh! 15:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I support deleting any candidate suggestions not backed up by RSs, go for it. Wikipedia is emphatically not just about absolute fact, it is also about reputable speculation, per WP:Crystal. Everything else you've said here is your own speculation, so why should we take your speculation over speculation by RSs? To put it another way--how do you know that any of these suggestions will prove wrong? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with TimmehPonileExpress (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random section break

[edit]
Wikipedia policy states:
  • 1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and 2016 Summer Olympics. By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified.
  • 2. Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. Lists of tropical cyclone names is encyclopedic; "Tropical Storm Alberto (2012)" is not, even though it is virtually certain that a storm of that name will occur in the North Atlantic and will turn counterclockwise. Similarly, articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system (such as "septenquinquagintillion") are not encyclopedic unless they are defined on good authority, or genuinely in use. Certain scientific extrapolations, such as chemical elements documented by IUPAC, before isolation in the laboratory, are usually considered encyclopedic.
  • 3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not. "Future history" is welcome at Future Wikia, where original research is allowed to some extent, and fact-based speculations are welcome.
There has not been constant misunderstanding or misuse of WP:Crystal. You have the specific disputed portion in bold already: "speculation about it must be well documented". There is hardly any speculation about the 2016 election by reliable sources. For something to be well documented, people must have written a lot about it. That is just not true of the 2016 election. There has been some brief speculation (Bob Smith may run in 2012 or 2016) located inside articles with a totally different main focus. The 2016 election will happen and it is notable, but speculation, there is little; well documented, it is not. That's why the article merits deletion until there is more and well documented speculation (likely after the 2012 election). Timmeh! 20:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We've got speculation in several well-respected sources, and there are literally thousands of less notable sources out there. To me, that makes the subject "well documented". If you want to put a threshold on how much documentation constitutes "well-documented", then rewrite WP:Crystal and I'll go and dig up enough references to meet your threshold. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Right now, there is not one article cited whose main focus is on speculating about the 2016 election. Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented. If speculation about the election is well documented, you should be able to find several articles by reliable sources whose focus is on the 2016 election. You may also notice that the 2012 election article has plenty of reliable sources speculating on the election and possible candidates (35 to be exact), and this one has just about none. Timmeh! 21:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Well documented means exactly what it means, well documented." So, apparently your argument is that your view is just self-evidently correct? You're welcome to your opinion, but there's nothing in WP:Crystal that says "there must be X number of sources, of which X-3 must focus solely on the subject of the article". I think several sources that mention possible candidates for the 2016 election, plus thousands of hits on Google, makes the subject well-documented with regards to the guidelines in WP:Crystal. You don't like the guidelines, change the guidelines or seek a consensus on what constitutes "well documented", don't just take the policy to mean "Whatever Timmeh thinks is well-documented". The fact that about a third of the editors here disagree with your interpretation of WP:Crystal is evidence that yours is not the only possible interpretation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take the definition of well documented from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English: "if something is well-documented, people have written a lot about it." The truth is that people have not written a lot about the 2016 election. In fact, as I stated earlier, there is not one cited article dedicated to the 2016 election. Therefore, how can you possibly expect anyone to believe there is well documented speculation when you cannot provide some specific examples? Also, a third of the editors here do not disagree with my interpretation of WP:Crystal as none (other than you) have tried to refute my point that there is not well documented speculation on the 2016 election. Also, I suggest you use the show preview button when making comments instead of having so many edits in a short period of time on one page. Timmeh! 00:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out before, there are five major news outlets that have already been cited in the article. Specifically, they are: The Washington Post, USA Today, RealClearPolitics, the New York Daily News, and the National Journal. Along with these notable sources, a Google search provides over 5000 less notable hits for "2016 election" and 3500 for "election in 2016". That's a lot, so yeah Longman is on my side. As for the other editors who disagree, just because they haven't taken the time to refute you on this specific point doesn't mean they agree with you. If WP:Crystal were unambiguous as you imply, then why do you think they disagree? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, as I've said before, those news sources only mention 2016 in passing and don't really speculate about the candidates that might run. Second, a Google search is hardly evidence that there are thousands of articles published by reliable websites that speculate about the 2016 election. Of just the first page of Google results for 2016 election, the second is a compilation of some kind of user blogs. The third is a Yahoo answer. Two are stores that sell election apparel. Some others are bloggers joking about running themselves in 2016. 95% of these results don't even contain reliable speculation, and you'll be lucky to find more than one that is an actual article dedicated to speculating about the 2016 election. Timmeh! 02:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say there is a lot of notable speculation, I said there is a lot of speculation, at least five ten instances of which are notable--and this is just from the first couple dozen I've had a chance to sort. After going through all 8500 results, no doubt there will be more. Yes, a lot of it is irrelevant--although the merchandising and jokes are not at all irrelevant, they are very telling, even if they happen to not be notable. See my reply to Reywas92 below for a fuller explanation of my position. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, you found ten articles about possible candidates for the 2016 election? Timmeh! 04:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if I recall correctly there are currently nine WP:Reliable sources cited in the article--now that I think about it, one was a repeat. But if ten is the magic number, then I can probably find you a tenth. ;) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All nine of those sources only mention 2016 in passing with a sentence or less. For speculation to be well documented or widely documented (however you wish to describe it), it needs to be the subject and bulk of an article. The sources cited and their speculation are just too vague and brief on the subject of the 2016 election that they don't belong or even qualify as "well documented." I know when you're the creator of an article, you don't like to see your work destroyed. I am assuming that is the main reason you wish to keep the article. However, the election being eight years away and the only speculation about it being extremely short and vague, there is just no reason for the article to exist until after the 2012 election. That is when a huge amount of speculation will be published very quickly, and there will be reason for the article to exist. That is also when the 2012 article was unprotected and created, and the 2008 election article still had no cited sources even after the 2004 election. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually create the article, I re-created it. Other editors had attempted to make this article, only to get a prompt deletion. But yes, of course nobody wants to see their work deleted, both because of the waste of my time and the waste of other editors' time--somebody will eventually have to redo the work I and others have put into this article--why reinvent the wheel? But I wouldn't go so far as to say that's the main reason. I created the article after I heard a commentator on CNN mention that Biden won't run for president in 2016. I was surprised that the commentator was speculating that far in advance, but after thinking about it, I realized why it's a particularly important election...like this election, there will probably be no incumbent running, so the field is going to be wide open. It's no wonder lots of people, including some "notable" pundits can't resist commenting on it...the Democrats want to usher in a new Democratic era, the Republicans can't wait to try and turn the tables, and people in general have become more politically aware as a result of this election. Combine that tidal wave of speculation with my own belief that we as Wikipedians have a responsibility to record both the correct and the incorrect positions taken by the pundits (call this accountability), plus my belief that most editors are waaaaaay too obstructionist--when they could be improving an article by sorting through the references and finding the bits of useful information, they tend to take the lazy route and delete. I think this behavior pushes new editors away from Wikipedia, and turns the editorship into an old boys' club, more interested in quoting policy than expanding the encyclopedia. I also think that most editors have absolutely no sense of scale. In this case, do the math... I've looked through a couple dozen--let's say 40--articles out of about 5000 hits for "2016 election", plus another 3500 for "election in 2016". Out of those 40, I've found nine that are notable. That's almost a 25% success rate. Extrapolate that across 8500 hits, and what do you get? 2125 notable sources. Even if every single one of those only contains only one sentence of relevant information, that's a novel's worth of research available out there...and don't forget about all the other possible permutations, "run in 2016", "running in 2016", "2016 contender", etc, etc, etc. Can there be any doubt at all that this election is the subject of massive speculation? So, maybe the speculation is distributed out over a thousand reputable sources? Isn't that much more notable than a factoid based on one or two fat articles? Yeah, it's tough to sort the wheat from the chaff, but that's just a question of parsing. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 05:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS: In response to your suggestion above... I do use the preview button. However, I am an editor. I edit, I correct, I reword. I don't mean to offend, but it's how I work. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Our job is to document the fact that major pundits are already speculating on the 2016 election--an astonishing fact which is in itself noteworthy. Our job is not to pass judgment on the quality or likelihood of the pundits' predictions' accuracy.Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pundits are not truly speculating on 2016. They are speculating on 2012 with a side note of "or maybe 2016." Please give me the sources that you are talking about that are fully devoted to speculating about 2016. Passing judgement may not be our entire job, but other factors must be taken into account than simply that someone's saying it. Reywas92Talk 23:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about sources being fully devoted to speculating about 2016, but when a notable writer says "so-and-so may run in 2012 or 2016" then we should take that at face value. We should not do some handwaving, and say "...well, the source might have written "2012 and 2016", but I think they were reeeeaalllly just talking about 2012". That might as well be WP:OR. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me a source that give more than a couple sentences of serious thought to 2016 specifially? Really, anyone theoretically running in 2012 could run in 2016. Why do we need articles for two future elections, one of which is four years away, one is eight years away, both have the same set of unsubstantiated, conjectural people, and neither of which has a single fact? Maybe I'm not taking crystal literally to the word, but when the entire article is based on unfounded hypothetical assumption from sources that only mention 2016 in passing, although from multiple reliable sources, then we don't need an article on an election eight years away. Reywas92Talk 02:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that anybody is talking about 2016 at all is amazing (and, incidentally, it's a good sign that this country is starting to overcome its dangerous shortsightedness). Though I have only seen one article that writes about the 2016 election in detail [1], there are currently at least ten reliable sources that mention 2016 in passing (and that's just from the couple dozen I've sifted through so far--it takes a while to sort through 8500 Google hits). Besides reliable sources, there are thousands more regular people looking towards the long-term goals of their respective parties in the form of article comments and blogs. While I have always granted that many of these speculations will be wrong, that is not at all the point. Twenty years from now, I want to be able to open up this article and read that Krauthammer said this and Kristol said that and Oberman said the other...and let's see who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards, etc, etc, etc. Wikipedia has effectively infinite space. There is no reason to set arbitrary limits on documenting the facts and speculations of our time. Every source that doesn't get recorded is another piece of information down the memory hole that keeps society from being self-informed, and keeps us from telling the truth about our past. That is why this is important. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that article is a very nice read, but it's not about the 2016 election at all. It's just using that date as an example for how the country should do elections. None of that information is useable in the article. Oh of course, our article on the 2016 is the the best place to find long-term goals of the Democratic Party. You have a very nice arguement for inclusionism there, but it doesn't explain why we should have an article on 2016 specifically. Seeing what predictions Krauthamer, Kristol, and Oberman said about the election eight years before the fact is not necessarily for Wikipedia, and who says not having a source on this site now means it's down the memory hole? Would/should their columns even be listed on Wikipedia 20 years from now? Do we or should we list columnists' predictions about 2008 that were made in 2000? And I don't see the 2004 writers' ideas on the 2012 article; I'm sure some could be dug up. If what we really want to know is "who was right and who was wrong and who flip-flopped and who held their cards", then maybe the article should be Columnists' predictions for the United States presidential election, 2016. Reywas92Talk 03:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...which is why I didn't include it in the references on the article itself. Should we have 2004 (or 2000) speculations on 2008? We don't. I wish we did; that's why I'm trying to strengthen our coverage of upcoming elections. Yes, as the volume of speculation increases, we should certainly create articles like the one you suggest, but at the moment, I think this is the best place for the small amount of notable speculation that currently exists. Finally, with Wikipedia rapidly becoming the central clearinghouse for all information, I think this is certainly the right place. With any luck, our pundits will one day be able to use it as a resource for improving their own punditry. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
nobody knows much , actually, bout a great many things, but it doesn't stop people from talking and writing about them, and their guess and predictions and speculations from being notable. Consequently, Wikipedia is not about Truth, and verifiable speculations by noted figures are notable. Of all the afds in the last month or so this is the one where I find any significant support for deletion most inexplicable. It's surer that this event will talk place than that almost anything else at that period in human affairs. it's of such critical importance to so many people, that of course people will already talk. And its reasonable that they should. This is probably the next forthcoming election where there is serious question over the Democratic nominee. Of course anyone interested in US or world politics will be thinking of what comes after him. If they aren't, they ought to be. --DGG (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That is completely different, though the fictional events are a little excessive. But that's not speculation! Reywas92Talk 03:37, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A book about the end of time is not speculation? Anyway, why do you cite the 2012 AfD in your case for this one? After all, according to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "Deletion debates can sometimes be faulty, and even if the debate was correct it can be hard to draw comparisons...Comparisons can be highly subjective, and so it is better to look at the debates in question and see what policies were cited and make an argument based on how they apply to the current debate than just say "x was kept so this should be too..." Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A book about the end of time is a book, not an election. It has already been written and isn't a future event. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, just because one editor ignores advice it gives doesn't mean it gives you the right to do so as well. Timmeh! 04:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point conceeded on the book, though the other articles I cited do contain plenty of speculation. If it really offends you that much that I like to clarify and otherwise tweak my remarks, then I'll try to keep it down to a minimum, as I have been since you made your last comment on the subject--however, the preview button has not proven an effective tool for me in the past. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, my point is not to excuse my own actions, but rather to point out that the foundation of this entire AfD is, in part, a violation of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I removed that statement about the preview button after I saw your response above. As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that page is neither a policy nor a guideline, just an essay giving advice, so it cannot be violated. Timmeh! 04:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I see several of us have made similar mistakes regarding the nature of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:CSB. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion As requested in the last AfD for this article just a couple weeks ago, if this AfD does result in a deletion, I suggest a date be set for its earliest possible recreation. Likewise, if it does not result in a deletion, I strongly recommend setting a date for the next allowable AfD nom. Otherwise, this could get very disruptive. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support November 6, 2012, when concrete facts may start showing up, and most of the unknowns around Obama are cleared. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment According to WP:Deletion, these are the reasons we delete articles:
Many reasons have been given for deleting this article, most of which do not appear anywhere in our deletion policy. The only actually acceptable reason that has been cited in this discussion is the last one--that it violates the "What Wikipedia is not" policy. However, a reading of WP:Not reveals no clear reason here either. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 07:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that the closing admin would already know the Deletion criteria, so there was no reason to list all that. For both Nathan McKnight and Timmeh, this is what was said to me before when I had repeatedly commented on an AFD: "If in an AFD, your arguement is strong, state it once and the closing admin will see it. But if you argue every keep/delete vote, it exudes weakness on your part and makes it look personal. It makes it look like you're desprate to have it deleted/kept." It was even worse on the previous debate. Are you really going to quit Wikipedia if this ends the other way? I see absolutely no reason why an article on an election eight years away for which there are no concrete facts should be kept, but if it is I won't think the world is wrong. Reywas92Talk 19:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not obsessed with deleting the article. I just love arguing with people I think are wrong. :) Of course, I am not quoting large chunks of Wikipedia policy, I am just arguing my view on the issue to attempt to sway some editors my way and gain consensus. I might not agree with the potential ruling on whether this article will be deleted or kept, but I will by no means be angry or upset about it. I will keep on editing Wikipedia, and I hope Nathan feels the same way.Timmeh! 19:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a lot of people chime in in a kneejerk fashion and I hope that some of the arguments I've made her might give these editors food for thought--including occasional reminders of what our policies actually say. I like to have a robust discussion because I think there are bigger issues at stake here than one article--namely, that we have a tendency to dismiss as trivial information that doesn't interest us but may interest others, and perhaps more importantly, that kneejerk deletions have a tendency to drive away new editors. Will I be disappointed if this nom doesn't go my way? Of course I will. An editor's convictions ought to be important to them. Will I take it personally? No, although some remarks have come close to personal attacks, I'm pretty thick skinned and I don't take offense. I hope that nobody has interpreted my own remarks as personal attacks either. I'm glad that Timmeh and I agree on this much at least. Finally, I don't think there is a right and wrong answer here. There are just different views of what Wikipedia's function should be. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timmeh, if we're cluttering up this AfD, maybe we could take this debate to one of our talk pages, because I really don't get your point of view and I would genuinely like to understand where you're coming from for the sake of future debates. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It is just too early to say anything useful about the 2016 U.S. presidential election. If people still want to work on it based on speculation, they can spend the next three years and nine months working on this article at the Future Wikia, then transfer it back to Wikipedia under the GFDL. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in 2 years (or more probably four) there may be something to put here, but right now there is nothing but speculation. Some of it can be sourced but most of it deals primarily with the 2012 election which quite rightly has an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delet Vive Barack Obama! Vive Barack Obama! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.186.77.142 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC) — 204.186.77.142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete it is pure speculation and taking up unneccessary space. Though I cannot practice the same form of elocution as the user Timmeh, I agree with him in all sentiments. Wikipedia could use more fair and unbiased and dare I say intelligent users like him. Raywas is also a very good user who started this page. Kudos to both gentlewomen.Rickji2 (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it's way too early to have this. The only certainty about the 2016 Presidential election is that it will be held. The article ("sourced" or not) is loaded with speculation, assuming that Obama serves two complete terms (hardly a certainty - see Jimmy Carter and John F. Kennedy) and predictions as to apportionment based on a yet-to-be-held census. Let's wait a few years when more than speculation becomes available.B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_election,_2016_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1138748084"