Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (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. per WP:CRYSTAL, without prejudice to recreating it when substantial coverage begins. This has gone on long enough, and the arguments to delete outweigh the arguments to keep. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024[edit]

AfDs for this article:
United States presidential election, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rename to "Speculation about the United States presidential election, 2024" or "United States presidential election, 2024 barrel scrapings". But really, this is some serious WP:CRYSTALBALL type stuff here. Having an article on this is like having an article on a TV show season that is two seasons ahead of the one currently being filmed. "The subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred". United States seems to be the only country with an election article this far into the future. For those who still don't understand, imagine a different country, one more prone to war, has an article just like this one. But war happens so they don't have any elections for that year. What do you think would happen to that article?

Analysis of the information in the article and the sources: (What's in parenthesis is new Wickypedoia (talk) 23:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]

  • [1] Who cares? (Article says: "According to an election calendar of Essex County, Virginia, Virginia has scheduled a presidential primary for March 5, 2024, subject to the primary being actually held." I don't think most people give a damn, seems clear to me that this was just another factoid added try to "beef up" this article. How is it not?)
  • [2] Opinion piece by Howard Gutman, not an actual reporter. (Article says: "Gutman believed either Ken Salazar or Julian Castro would be likely contenders." Doesn't seem to be an "authority" on US election/politics or be known for his political opinions if you check out his article. Tell me how much more this adds than if it were some random non-notable person?)
  • [3] Doesn't seem to have anything about this specific election despite the title.
  • [4] Book that I don't have access to.
  • [5] Seems to be scraped from one sentence of 21 page document on page 9. Okay for details, not for establishing notability.
  • [6] Seems that you have to pay to get full assess, but it's likely more barrel scrapping. Article says "In a study of the implications of redistribution of electors in 2024...blah blah, half of source's abstract", but the source's abstract says "Using ...blah blah, I show that by 2024... blah blah" (Source is from 2009, title has 2010 and 2020 census, could apply to several elections, so it wasn't just "a study of the implications of redistribution of electors in 2024" that the article makes it seem. That relatively large quote from the abstract furthers skews the source's perceived importance and relevancy to the reader.)
  • [7] Zzz (Source says: "This would result in minor changes to the Electoral College in 2024" yay something relevant! Someone put a sentence about the source in the article, any little thing that can be found helps I guess. Maybe more can be said? I don't want to find that out.)
  • [8] Getting an WP:OR vibe from the paragraph that uses this as a source. Article says "in the 2024 election", but the source doesn't seem reference or be specific to the 2024 US presidential election. (Similar to [6])
  • [9], [10], [11] Ah, a "In popular culture" section. Maybe we can described them as "declared (fictional)" candidates? (I don't know how relevant fictional characters campaign announcements are to real elections. Also the NYDN source says "Flashing forward to 2020, Geraldo Rivera announced that Jeb Bush had just been re-elected to a second term", and since he has dropped out this would be a case of WP:Unreliable speculation. And the NYT piece just seems like another thing that can be added to a "In popular culture" section, but not to notability.) Wickypedoia (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Co-signing this nomination I am doing this because LavaBaron is attempting to get this nomination quashed because the nominator had been indef'd. The reasoning above is sound, no matter what the ultimate disposition of the account that proffered it has been. I agree with it in all parts, and thus sign my name to the reasoning, and so choose to co-sign this nomination as my own. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 05:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin - note that this editor appears to have !voted multiple times in this AfD, part of a pattern of unusual situations with this AfD, beginning with its creation by an indeffed editor and including the fact it is a re-nom of an 84-day closed AfD. Also note that by "co-signing" the indeff'ed account's nom they are signing on to have the article renamed, not deleted (which is one of their other !votes), as per the wording of the nom. LavaBaron (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Closing Admin - note that this editor is trying to scuttle an AFD nomination that is not going the way they'd like purely on procedural grounds. Note also that I'm simply endorsing the reasoning of the nomination, not intending for this to be an extra !vote. AFDs are a discussion, and editors aren't precluded from participating in that discussion multiple times. If they were, LavaBaron himself would have run afoul of such a stipulation long ago, as his username appears up and down this page, haranguing those with whom he disagrees. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 13:09, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You currently have one !vote for "Rename" and one !vote for "Delete." It's fine to comment multiple times - that's the meaning of a discussion which is what WP is about - but !voting multiple is a real pain. But, if you insist you need to !vote multiple times, please at least make sure all of your ballots read the same. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should really stop doing this kind of thing. My note here was simply an endorsement of the nomination as valid, since you seemed to be attempting to scuttle the AFD that isn't going your way through pettifoggery regarding WHO made the nomination. The endorsement doesn't change my recommendation that this article be deleted, and I think it's clear that the "rename" portion of the original nomination was a (slightly petty) way of demonstrating how ludicrous the existence of such a WP:CRYSTALBALL article really is. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 16:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 12:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Abort AfD, Block Nominator - (a) Known, most likely, to this 30-day old account, is the fact that Coffee just closed an AfD on this article as Keep 90 days ago. As Staszek Lem noted at the time "the article clearly explains its notability" while Jakec observed that there was "already significant analysis of the election, so it's notable" and 4meter4 explained "it's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election" and Curro2 said "if we have articles on future elections, we should have an article for this". For these reasons, and more, we should Keep the article. (Plus we should not continuously AfD articles until we get our desired outcome.) (b) This is a malformed AfD as the nominator isn't even asking for deletion but for renaming. The AfD should, therefore, be aborted. Finally, (c) In this account's month-old history it's already been blocked by Smalljim once for disruption and this appears to be another attempt at disrupting the encyclopedia; given the fact of the recent failed AfD of this article - and the highly combative tone of this AfD - account is most probably a sock of an aggrieved participant in the first AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you are right, but prefer to keep the discussion here on the deletion proposal; and not on the nominator. I suggest you take any sock puppet allegations to the appropriate forum at wp:SPI... L.tak (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made any allegation, only an observation. LavaBaron (talk) 20:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, in the context you wrote them in, I perceived them as such... The suggestion however still stands for your observation. Especially because you proposed/suggested/!voted to block to proposer, I thought of what would be the best place to achieve that.. L.tak (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually closed as "no consensus" as noted below. And articles that have been kept may still get deleted later on. I have provided a new analysis of the article, I would like it if anyone suggesting "keep" respond to that. I don't think I've came across as "highly combative" in this AfD, I was joking when I said to rename. Also please "keep" the discussion on topic, open an "Editors for condemnation" if you think you have a case ;) Wickypedoia (talk) 02:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given the high level of WP:DUCK that's going on here, yes, I am tracking your edits now and, yes, a case will be opened soon. I apologize if I distracted from this specific AfD, though, despite its inane silliness. LavaBaron (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck Wickypedoia (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron you say "I haven't made any allegation". Yet you said "account is most probably a sock". That is an unquestionable personal attack. Per WP:NPA "Serious accusations require serious evidence". AusLondonder (talk) 00:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there's anybody who needs to be blocked, it's you, @LavaBaron:. You badgered the hell out of the last AfD with keepist comments and it looks like you'll do that on this one too. The previous AfD was closed as No Consensus and it's fine to reopen a No Consensus AfD after three months. pbp 05:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chillax, User:Purplebackpack89 and User:AusLondonder - the nom has now been successfully blocked indefinitely from WP. Don't beat yourselves up, it happens. LavaBaron (talk) 05:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "successfully blocked"? Should we roll out the "Mission Accomplished" banner? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Athomeinkobe: @Purplebackpack89: @AusLondonder: Regarding your messages to @LavaBaron: What does he mean by successfully blocked? The Nominator was the type of person who would switch Hillary Clinton's and Donald Trump's article pages, for the fun of it. A "Mission Accomplished" banner seems to be in order. While proof of sockpuppeting may not be achievable, the Nominator's subtle vandalism practices are obvious. KnowledgeBattle (Talk) | ──╤╦︻ GodlessInfidel ︻╦╤── 04:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great idea, we should indeed. Successfully protecting the encyclopedia from vandals is always a cause for celebration. "Mission accomplished!" LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see what has changed since last time. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 17:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an analysis of the article content and each of the sources that I had access to, I don't think the latter was done in the previous AfD. Wickypedoia (talk) 02:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close I agree this article is non-notable (the census changes are, but that is another story), but we are not in the business of reopening AFDs every few months.... If it were 2017, this would be a valid renom, but within half a year... L.tak (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is not much substantive that can be said about this election at this time, nor is it likely that anything substantive will be available to be said for a quite a while. For comparison, United States presidential election, 2012 was deleted seven times, and the article was only accepted in November 2008 when the election was only four years ahead. This election is more than eight years away. I would also note that the prior AfD closed as "no consensus to delete, default to keep", rather than as a proper "keep". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As Dimadick said in the AfD of 84 days ago, "this is already getting some decent coverage by sources. I see no reason for deletion" - LavaBaron (talk) 00:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And I would love to see that if it exists. Any links, please? Wickypedoia (talk) 02:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, the prior AfD was closed as no consensus. This seems like a perfectly appropriate re-nomination to me. I always support keeping articles for future elections. But that's because people usually exercise some restraint and don't create articles for the next next election. Of course WP:GEOBIAS is relevant here. If someone created an article for the election after the next election for even the UK (let alone somewhere in the global south), editors would rightly support deletion. Irrespective of all that, this does not meet WP:GNG. The coverage is trivial and poor quality. AusLondonder (talk) 02:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a failed example. The UK, operating under a parliamentary system, could not logically sustain an election after next election article, even with the fixed term parliaments acts. But I would have no problem with an election after next election article in a strong-presidential system like Mexico or Argentina, provided there were as ample quality sources as there is here. To quote Esquivalience this article "allows readers to gain knowledge of the circumstances and viewpoints behind the 2024 US presidential election." LavaBaron (talk) 03:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, you have reacted to the last 2 delete !votes with a quote from the previous discussion. That is an interesting style, but by doing so you triggered a notification with 2 previous !keep voters that were not involved yet in this discussion. If you'd do it more often people could perceive it as a canvassing strategy. L.tak (talk) 07:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron - please stop canvassing previous keep !voters. Secondly, what is the difference? Why does a presidential system need an election after the next election article but a parliamentary system not? Also, to suggest there are "ample" sources here is astonishing. AusLondonder (talk) 08:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't accuse me of canvassing. If you think I am, take it to ANI. Don't derail this AfD, regardless of how silly it is. LavaBaron (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People can perceive whatever they like, however, I am required to ping other editors when discussing them. The quotes in question are relevant as they informed my own !vote in the AfD prior to this one ... you know, the one that took place 84 days ago. LavaBaron (talk) 14:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Then keep it balanced on both sides (you are free to ping all previously involved) or stop it (you were warned last time not to react to every !delete vote). If not I will indeed ask the admins involved previously to reconsider... L.tak (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm not going to "balance" the number of quotes I use from "Keep" and "Delete" !votes as I have made a personal decision that "Keep" provides greater salience and relevance to this discussion which is, in fact, why I !voted "Keep" to begin with. That is the nature of opinion expression on WP. There are quotes from other editors I believe have salience to this discussion and I am using them. As demanded by policy, I am pinging them to know I have invoked their names; they're not just being randomly pinged into this discussion, nor have I made exhortations for said editors to come here and !vote. If you want to throw a fit and derail this discussion with personal attacks, accusations, and specious claims of canvassing, do it at ANI, please. Otherwise, two admins have, in fact, already weighed-in on this discussion so why don't you start your ridiculously ominous ellipse-closing "reconsider ..." request with them? (If this is overly harsh, I apologize, but as you gain greater experience on WP you'll find few editors appreciate being threatened.)
Secondly, if you don't want me to respond to your comments in this AfD, then generalize them instead of starting them with the salutation "LavaBaron ..." - if you don't address me directly by name you'll find I'll be delighted to ignore everything you write, as per your request. Thanks. LavaBaron (talk) 16:18, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
LavaBaron, the point is that your quotations with links to others may (unintentionally?) lead to making a non-randomly chosen subset of people aware of the discussion, which has the same effect of canvassing. That's something to avoid. The way to do that is up to you. Furthermore, I have no problems that you react to my points (thanks!), but asked you not to react to every !delete "vote" in this discussion in order not to bludgeon the process. L.tak (talk) 17:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:L.tak, I don't think pinging editors who participated in the other AFD can be considered inappropriate canvasing per Wikipedia:Canvassing. One of the items specifically mentioned in the canvassing guidelines under "Appropriate Canvasing" is "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic". Therefore, pinging anyone from the old AFD is fair game under wiki policy. In general I am seeing a lot of editors in this discussion and others who are incorrectly assuming things about wiki policies because they haven't actually fully read them or have forgotten them.4meter4 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fully Agree 4meter4. My point was about pinging only editors taking one side, which may happen when quoting just them... As far as I am concerned, pining all is not wrong at all (although it may add to the drama already here ;-))L.tak (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great point, 4meter - clearly I'm not the only one confused about what L.tak is on about. I think we all agree he'd be better to stop the conspiracy theorizing and focus on policy-based arguments related to the discussion. LavaBaron (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as before, this article shouldn't be created until at least after the 2018 US mid-term elections have been held. GoodDay (talk) 04:25, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. For those who haven't bothered to read the policy, it states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It's clear that a US presidential election is of sufficient wide interest. It's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election. I'm not buying some arbitrary timeline "of not to be created until 2018" that editors are choosing to make up or User:Wickypedoia poor attempt at trying to dismiss the sources based on arbitrary personal opinion. If good sources are available already ( The New York Times, The Washington Post and The New York Daily News among others) than the article falls within wikipedia's scope. The article is clearly acceptable and in allignement with wikipedia policy on covering future events. Best.4meter4 (talk) 13:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (changed my mind) Obviously satisfies WP:GNG: a number of serious authors nontrivially discuss the topic. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • deleteAfter reviewing the article more carefully, I see the content, while referenced, is dangerously close to WP:TRIVIA and most of its content other than basic stats are speculations and will better be deleted anyway when the actual thing happens. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale and analysis of the sources. The 2024 election per se dosen't pass WP:GNG or WP:EVENT at this point. As the available coverage focuses primarily on the census data, a merge with United States census might be considered (as was done in the 1st Afd discussion).--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ddcm8991, in what way is a future US presidential election not notable; particularly one that has already been the focus of articles in widely read and highly respected publications like The Washington Post and The New York Times? In what way does this topic not pass WP:GNG? Please cite the relevant passages, because as far as I can tell the policies support keeping the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The sources focus mainly on census data that have relevance to 2024, but there is little in-depth coverage of the the election itself. Not enough to warrant a separate article, per my reading of WP:GNG, WP:EVENT, and WP:42. --Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A United States presidential election is notable and their are multiple tertiary sources discussing this future election as the main subject in prominent publications with wide readership across the globe. WP:GNG is satisfied. The references used support the content in the article and in no scenario is this election not going to have an article at some point; regardless of the outcome of this AFD. If Notability is not temporary and sufficient sources currently exist what is the point of this AFD? The article is only going to be recreated at a later date. What's the harm of letting it stay and improving the article over time?4meter4 (talk) 13:45, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Future events can be covered on Wikipedia, we don't need to just go deleting articles for fun. Earthscent (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. and WP:TOOSOON.Wickypedoia's analysis of each source makes clear how they lack significant in-depth coverage/dicussion of the subject directly. While all the sources may be adequate for verifying specific information, they are inadequate for the purposes of establishing notability.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as too soon, too speculative, too crystal-ballish, etc. For all we know, by 2024 President for Life Trump may be starting his third term, Texas could secede (again), and Puerto Rico and Guam could be states. Yeah, probably there will be an election then, but we can wait an see rather than having to ride herd on an article for eight years. Mangoe (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the nom. and others who've commented that the sources simply don't provide the detailed and in-depth coverage needed to pass WP:GNG, certainly not enough to justify having an article for a election that is 8 years and 2 election cycles away.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Watching this page since the last AfD; registering Keep now for same reasons I registered in the previous one. BlueSalix (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, because WP:WAYTOOSOON is too far away to have been created yet. United States Electoral College is a potential destination for moving the information on demographics. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the U.S. Electoral College article would be a plausible destination in which to merge and redirect the demographic info.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as still not yet convincing. SwisterTwister talk 05:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, and whatever policy covers Wikipedia acting as a leading indicator. Most of the statements regarding the election (an thus the utility of the article at present) rests on current speculation of electoral changes as the result of voter demographics changes because of the 2020 census. That will be determined once the census has occurred, and the changes have actually been implemented. Wikipedia isn't a news leader; when there is something that has been said that is of factual value, we can say it after the fact (when we should). Everything being predicated on the census clearly indicates that until the census happens, it's anybody's guess as to results, no matter how well-informed that guess may be, and we don't deal in pure speculation, we deal in after-the-fact collation of information. MSJapan (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no genuinely compelling need for crystal ball articles about elections that are still eight years into the future, which can really say absolutely nothing of substance beyond "this is a thing that will happen, the end" — this kind of thing does not need to exist until the election in question is close enough that there's some meaningful content that can be added to it. Although it's not formal policy as such, I'd fully support a principle that a future election article should not exist until we can at least put an actual name, and not just a "TBA", in the "incumbent leader going into the election" field. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Expect this AFD to be relisted at least twice. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:01, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 05:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs) as un-salter. LavaBaron (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NOT/WP:CRYSTAL, and note acceptability of renomination: Lest we forget, it was an NC-default-to-keep, not a Keep outright. Three months seems more than enough time to revisit it. Anywho, there's just too much we don't know for this to be anything more than idle speculation. Who's ever elected in 2016 couldn't run in 2024 unless they are defeated in 2020. There's also a Census between now and then, so the electoral map will be different. The people who are perceived as frontrunners now may be dead, disgraced or disinterested by 2024. And will the award-electoral-votes-to-the-nationwide-popular-vote-total winner thing pass in enough state houses to work or won't it? There's just too many question marks for this to be a viable article. pbp 05:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Since nothing whatsoever has changed, I'll repeat what I wrote last time: "My inclination after reading the thread on AN/I was to !vote "delete", but after reading the article, I think there is sufficient valuable information there to justify keeping it, primarily because of the potential adjustment of Electoral Votes following the 2020 census. Had it not been for this factor, I would have followed through and !voted "delete", but given that factor, I believe it should be kept. Under normal circumstances, however, only the immediately following election should have a placeholder article." A trout to Wickypedoia for an unnecessary re-nomination. BMK (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - The nominator, whose account was open for a month before making this AfD, has now been blocked indefinitely by Coffee. Oh, and enjoy all the non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace. In light of this, and reasons stated before by myself and others for a procedural close, I'm re-filing a request for the abortion of this AfD which was not made in GF but was made by a disruptive account for the sole purpose of being disruptive. LavaBaron (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - while the original nomination my not have been in GF (I'm accepting that, not having examined the editor or the context of his blocking at all), but there are quite a number of delete opinions expressed in good faith that should not merely be tossed because of a questionable nomination. LadyofShalott 19:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:LadyofShalott - these opinions, though expressed in GF as they may be, are essentially a re-run of the AfD on this article that was closed 84 days before this one was opened. If I pick any article on WP and AfD it enough I'm sure I can get it deleted. AfD is like a grand jury - do it enough and eventually you'll get the result you want. That's why we don't usually countenance hourly, daily, weekly, monthly AfDs on the same article. This is a bad faith AfD by a major vandal - the arguments have all already been argued once before over a period of weeks, and just recently too. If this AfD is not procedurally closed it's a green light to begin abusively "flood" AfD'ing any article we don't like. A discussion occurred already, and - by my count - 88% of the !votes in this AfD are from the same editors who participated in that one.LavaBaron (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SALT until after the 2020 election. The prior AFD closed with a good majority to either delete or merge and should not have defaulted to keep. As before, there are no substantive sources about the future election itself that would even pass gng, merely content about demographics in that year. Popular culture references are inappropriate for the subject matter and do not provide notability - House of Cards is rightly not in the 2016 article. The remainder is generic information about American elections, nothing providing importance to the subject. Even after this year's election, anything about candidates is purely speculative and without substance until after 2020. I also urge LavaBaron not to WP:BLUDGEON this discussion as in prior AFDs. Debates closed as no consensus are welcome to be reconsidered, and I kindly request someone other than Coffee to close this one. Reywas92Talk 05:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect There are sources giving non-trivial coverage to the 2024 United States Presidential Election, but it’s not particularly substantive and it will likely be years before we get better coverage. During the last AfD, I voted to merge the demographic information into the article on the 2020 United States Census. I believe that this and redirecting the article title to United States presidential election would be the best option; once the demographic information is removed all that remains is the in popular culture section and some sparse speculation on 2024 candidates. However, I think keeping this article would be in-line with policy even if I do not consider doing so to be the best outcome. Also, if this is closed as no consensus, I think it would be best to wait until at least the conclusion of the 2016 election before renominating. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. True, possibly we may degenerate into a dictatorship by then and not bother with elections, or evolve into a libertarian paradise, and no longer need them. Short of these possibilities, it's going to happen, and people are going to discuss it, as early as they possibly can, because that's what political people and commentators fdo. There's already some, and in about 6 months there will be a great deal more. because people always try to proeject what will be coming. How short -sighted and over-literal can we possibly get, that we hold offon making a n article like this until just before the election. DGG ( talk ) 06:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia may not be a crystal ball, but there is and will be real coverage of this event in reliable sources before 2024. That means it meets the notability guideline, and as such should be kept IMO. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When those sources exist is when the article should exist; you are describing WP:CRYSTAL. 331dot (talk) 07:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, the 20 existing sources are... what, exactly? You'll note the "is and will be" part of my original comment. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are three sections: Gossip, talk of the the potential impact of the next census, and "in popular culture". Some analysis of trends in population (a separate subject we already cover), are giving political writers a bit of material to talk about the 2024 election (based on electoral college gains/losses via population changes). Other than that, there's throwaway speculation about who might run, off-hand comments from various political figures and celebrities, and other silliness. The only valuable substance here is the analysis of the electoral college, but why could this not be covered in one of the articles about the electoral college, congressional appointments, or the census? Changes brought by the census, by the way, are not unique to 2024. There are speculative sources about 2032 too (and probably 2044...any beyond?), and the 2032 election is one of the examples given of an inappropriate article at WP:CRYSTALBALL. That it will be notable is completely beside the point. The reason we don't create articles about subjects before there's been sufficient coverage is because having this article does a disservice to the readers, feeding into the empty speculation and gossip that's routine for a news blog or 24h news channel. To clarify, I wouldn't be opposed to a Merge (to e.g. 2020 United States Census) but a redirect wouldn't make sense. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:19, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete, per my previous reasoning--which I am cutting and pasting here--as well as per the nomination statement: "This isn't even a particularly close call. There is tons of precedent that these types of "articles" are basically proscribed. Additionally, every single "per WP:CRYSTALBALL keep should be discarded as frivolous, since that page explicitly states that such articles as this one shouldn't exist. This is little more than a coatrack for various theories and viewpoints. As someone mentioned above there might be a small amount of content that could be assimilated into the 2020 Census article, but that's it." Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 14:01, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussions, and is based on WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NORUSH, and WP:COMMONSENSE. An article on the next election is fine, I might even be convinced about an article on the next next election (2020) as we get to within a year of the previous one, but the next next next election is just silly. We can split this back off to its own article in 2020. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge to 2020 United States Census, per nomination statement and the arguments of Reywas92, Rhododentrites, Hallward's Ghost,and Anhecht.--Cojovo (talk) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - as I stated in my last vote, the 2024 election is already upon us in a very real way. Not only is the date set by the US Constitution, but there are plenty of WP:RS that discuss how organizers and even candidates are materially developing in reaction to current events. It's not like we are talking about 2060 here, where there is no feasible way of sourcing the item, even though it will be notable as well. The reality is, as I said before, that US politics makes the next two to three presidential elections relevant and filled with detail well in advance. As an aside, the reality of writing an important article is that many of the good RS today may not be locatable in 4-5 years; to write the best encyclopedia possible, we need to start in on something when it pops up as notable. We had a good discussion before, and nothing new is in the rationale for the AFD. So I don't see the reason we're all wasting our time on this again... Jeremy112233 (Lettuce-jibber-jabber?) 00:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have struck the nominator's !vote since he/she has been indefinitely blocked as a persistent and acute vandal. This is done for ease of closing admin bookkeeping, and also as an informational courtesy for new !voters to this AfD who may appreciate knowing the AfD is a bad faith proposal proffered by a persistent and acute vandal who was indefinitely blocked from WP almost immediately after opening this AfD due to a pattern of extreme disruption, bordering on outright destruction of major, high-traffic sections of Wikipedia. LavaBaron (talk) 04:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be honest, you struck it because you do not like the fact that it is a good analysis of the sources, which many participants here have referred to and endorsed, regardless of who initially wrote it. I have unstruck the text accordingly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) P.S. If you consider this a "bad faith AFD", what about the user's other proposals at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canada and the 2016 United States presidential election and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Bernie Sanders Facebook groups suspension, the last two of which were endorsed by overwhelming majorities? AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 04:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I really wanted to obfuscate access to it I would have deleted it totally. The fact I merely struck it, which is customary in cases of mass vandalism and allows anyone to continue to read it with relative ease, debunks your conspiracy theory. Your undoing of the striking of the indeffed account's comments is done in violation of WP:SIGCLEAN but I'll ask another editor to undo your vandalism (as this topic is subject to active arbitration, it is under a 1RR restriction, precluding me from undoing the vandalism on my own).
Also, I find it a bit interesting you have been so vociferous - here and elsewhere - in your support for this major, page-destroying vandal who was indefinitely blocked for switching the entire Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump articles, and posting child porn on their userpage. LavaBaron (talk) 04:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the link to WP:SIGCLEAN. In this case, because the text is the nomination itself and the main evidence in support of deletion, to which many others have subsequently referred, I think it should not be struck because it is not "relatively easy to read" when struck through. So despite the general rule, I believe there is more benefit in keeping it as is in this case despite the nominator's subsequent block. So I stand by my removal of the strikethrough. If a disinterested party tells me to do so was still wrong regardless of my reasons, then I certainly won't do it again, but I would certainly not call it vandalism.
I do not consider myself as "supporting" the nominator at all. I just happen to support this particular nomination for deletion, and am certainly not the only one to do so. After seeing your accusations that it is a "bad faith nomination", I had a look at their other nominations and have come to the conclusion they were not bad faith either. I haven't looked at the whole of their edits though, so given the fact that they were blocked indefinitely means there must have been some serious disruption. But I do not believe that makes every edit they performed vandalism which must be struck out. Why not have a little faith that, regardless of who started the discussion, the large number of subsequent participants means a fair outcome will be reached in the end?
A final point - if there was child porn on the nominator's user page, I've gotta ask why you thought it was a good idea to share it with every participant here. I note you've changed the text of the piped link to describe what was there, but your original link was something vague like "look at the nominator's userpage". When I clicked on it the page had been deleted so I didn't see anything offending. But boy I would be pissed off with you just as much as I would be with the nominator if I suddenly had such images appearing on my screen. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apart from my two comments on this page, where have I "supported" the nominator? I can't remember doing it at all, let alone vociferously. Form my recollection, I posted the aside about "mission accomplished" and unstruck the text. Please point me in the direction of other occasions I have supported them. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have time to read your entire speech but, vis a vis the first sentence, your opinions of what WP's policies should be doesn't trump WP's policies as they actually are. From "flood" AfD'ing this article to multiple !voting to an indeff'ed vandal opening this nom to engaging in revert vandalism, the "Delete" side has - once again - succeeded in setting a certain "scorched earth" approach in their attempts to purge this most-hated of articles. But, whatever. You can choose to undo your vandalism or someone else can do it for you. Doesn't really matter to me. LavaBaron (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's my interpretation of the guideline as it stands, not my opinion on what it should be. Despite your now repeated claim, I do not think my action was vandalism. If I read WP:Vandalism correctly, you are accusing me of a "deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia". I'd ask you to re-consider the allegation in light of my explanation.
Since my last post was a bit too long, let me take you to the important points. (1) You providing obscured links to child porn - care to share your rationale for doing so? (2) The postscript about me providing vociferous support "elsewhere" is also something I'd genuinely like an answer to, because I honestly have no recollection of doing so. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, your decision to trump WP's policies because you just don't like them is absolutely not permitted. And if you don't retract this sick accusation that I have been "providing obscured links to child porn" within the next 15 minutes real-time, I will immediately take this to ANI. I have never been subject to such vile comments in my time on WP (this even eclipses the time User:Baromp accused me of posting links to anti-Semitism [4], for which he was promptly indeffed by User:Floquenbeam). It's clear you are here for one reason: disruption. Just like the now indeff'd editor who opened this AfD. Quite a coincidence, but I'll let someone else judge how big of one. LavaBaron (talk) 07:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, it is a guideline open to interpretation, not an iron-clad rule handed down from above. Ever heard of WP:IAR? Despite that, I will say once again that if a disinterested party tells me that I was wrong to do so, I would re-strike the text. But I think it is not so simple now that someone else has endorsed the post.
On the other point, yesterday you provided a link to the nominator's userpage with this edit. Your link was piped as "enjoy their userspace", i.e. giving no indication to any person who clicked the link what lay beyond. The offending page was deleted 8 minutes later and at some stage the piped text was changed to the current "enjoy all the non-contextualized naked toddler pics on their userspace". If your original post used such language, then there would have been sufficient warning and nobody in their right mind would click the link.
But assuming the material was there at the time you posted the link, you must admit that you provided an obscure link to offensive and probably illegal material. At some stage you corrected the error, which was hopefully because you realized the mistake you made. I just wanted to ask what your rationale was for providing the original link? Reading the post for a second time, I can guess you wanted to demonstrate that the user was blocked and a really bad person. That's fair enough, and hopefully nobody followed your link before the page was deleted.
As for your final aspersions, I feel no need to respond because any disinterested person that looks at my contributions for the last two years would soon see your allegation has absolutely no basis. You mentioned the 1RR thing earlier, so this topic must have a nasty history. But I have taken no part in it before, and am unlikely to ever do so again.
This post may be a bit long again, but I would appreciate the courtesy of you reading it this time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've realized I have made my own mistake in drawing a link between LavaBaron and porn, so I apologise wholeheartedly. Nothing good can come from continuing this thread. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You must think 2028 Summer Olympics is really "too far in the future" then. LavaBaron (talk) 09:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually stuff to say about it... AusLondonder (talk) 16:38, 26 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_election,_2024_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1089517869"