Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 us presidential election

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 redirect to

2012 us presidential election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

Probably could be speedied. Election hasn't been talked about even yet. Unsourced material. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line} 15:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. This page was speedy deleted yesterday.[1]
  (rawr!) 15:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  Wikipedia is not the place to speculate about something thats 4 years away. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -
  ^WS _(contribs) 16:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete the time will come yes, but this page as written is terrible... "US" should be capatalized, it should match standard layout of elections, doesn't have the navbox... normally these are editing issues and not deletion issues--but in this case, it looks so bad that to me it is doing harm to Wikipedia in terms of quality and should be deleted. But if you want to get technical, there's no source listed that Barack Obama will seek a second term. So there!--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This, of course, isn't the first time that a 2012 election article has been proposed. There's a reason why there is little to say at the moment about 2012, but when there is, it will need to follow the form that has been used consistently for all prior U.S. presidential election articles. It looks bad to create a stub that says little more than that there will be an election four years from now, or that the incumbent will run again unless he doesn't run again. I imagine that someone will announce their candidacy for Republican nomination sometime in the next 12 months, and the process will start. It's important to note that the number of electoral votes will change after the 2010 census, and even observations about whether a state is gaining or losing population will be just guesses. Mandsford (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — pure
  MuZemike (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment while that's a safe bet, we don't even truly know that!--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll have to verify that for you. Let me get my crystal ball… :)
      MuZemike (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Can you also verify if the US will exist in 2012, and whether it will still be holding elections as well? :-) 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and protect from recreation (this applies to all other articles like it) IRK!_{Leave me a note or two} 18:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep and fix the title by moving to
  notable. When reliable and independent sources discuss some future event, especially the very next in a defined series which gets worldwide coverage each time it happens, it is not crystal ball gazing. There have been polls of who Republicans prefer as the nominee and discussion of who is taking the actions a prospective candidate would take, such as maximizing their national presence. There have been discussion of actual or proposed rule changes, such as requiring voter-verified paper ballots and avoiding states moving their primaries early as happened in 2008. The rules are being adjusted. The candidates are getting set, since a presidential campaign is not a spur of the moment thing. The article on the 2008 election was created early in 2003 [2] and survived a deletion debate in December 2003. Edison (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment kind of looks like that one is already there...--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, it looks like a blue-link, but like Joe Lieberman, it is a blue link that is not quite a red link, but actually a redirect. It redirects to the article about presidential elections in general. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • … because of the prior AFD discussion of this very same subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination). This is now the third time around this particular loop for Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course speculation about this has already started. Move to the standard term a Edison suggests. Of course, we could hide our collective heads in a hole in the ground for the next three years. some events are predictable and certain to be important. A truly unbelievable nomination. We might possibly object to having an article on n+1 until n is finished and done with, but by now that's exactly the case. As one of the deletors the first time around put it in 2006 "Delete without prejudice to recreate after the 2008" DGG (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until we have a press article saying something factual, like "so-and-so has formed a committee." We don't need an article sitting around gathering idle speculations that will just have to be removed in the end.
  talk) 09:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and Salt
  WP:CRYSTAL exists for a reason, and I don't want to repeal it. RayAYang (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as 100%
  WP:CBALL. There are no concrete actions or verifiable facts beyond the scheduled election date. The article is pure speculation. • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom
  talk) 00:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all above. Senseless speculation. Matt Deres (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment
  United States presidential election, 2012 redirects to United States presidential election 70.55.84.27 (talk) 11:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Every single country which is going to have one gets an article immediately after the current election takes place. keep this (and the timeline article I wrote), or get rid of ALL the others.Ericl (talk) 20:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion- Most ridiculous thing to make before the 2008 president even comes into office, way too soon for anybody to even care.Xx1994xx (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep and move to
  Peruvian general election, 2011 -- and sourced and encyclopedic and everything like that. Ericl's reasoning is correct: if all of those are proper, then this one is proper too. --Lockley (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unprotect the article with the proper name,
  crystal ball "voters" so far have even bothered to do a basic news search which would disprove their claims. DHowell (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I don't think this should be deleted. If there are legitamate sources to substantiate infortmation, it should be kept. Although it should certainly be merged with
  United States presidential election, 2012. Quark1005 (talk) 10:18, 11 November 2008 (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.