Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012

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 of the debate was delete. — Mar. 9, '06 [04:03] <

• Speedy delete per
  Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012. Though that was decided about a year and a half ago, nothing meangingful has changed since then to justify recreating this (or the others by necessary implication). Or, simply delete all per nom. Postdlf 23:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • These should also be protected against recreation... Postdlf 14:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per Android 79.La Pizza11 23:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 2016 and 2020 per nom and speedy delete 2012. And orphan them all, of course. Kusma (討論) 23:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  e Ong 11:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per TerenceOng. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or, alternatively, redirect to United States presidential election. — RJH 17:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP This artical does not claim to tell the futer but merly gives needed anaylise on these very intresting subjets. As about it not being a current election, the 2008 Presidential Election artical was established without dispute substantialy before the 2004 Election. Anyway, there are many websites anaylising the particulars of these elections. I am tired of bullies trying to cut off articals that are considerd "silly" or "unimportant" before they are even given a chance. Evreything is factual and just because this is lower priority doesn't mean that people shouldn't be allowed to contribute. It may not help as much as some other artical but it difenitly helps. Finally, I envision a Wikipedia that has exelant articals on every imanginable even slightly important subjects. Anyway, this is a VERY important subject and an EXTREAMLY intresting one. Just because some people consider it unintresting does not mean they should be allowed to hamper intellectuall communication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpackfan72 (talk • contribs)

  I don't consider it uninteresting. It's just not

  verifiable, nor is everything in the article(s) "factual". android79 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Name one thing that is not 100% factual — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolfpackfan72 (talk • contribs)

  Given that the

  2010, the electoral makeup of many states will likely change and Once the 2008 election is concluded, it is expected that people will start to speculate and many will consider candidacies for the 2012 election are meaningless bits of speculation. Everything else is just scheduling. Please sign your comments. android79 20:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  ...and even to the extent that the predictions are "valid," it's the kind of prediction you find in a horoscope—so general and noncommittal that it's not really falsifiable. Postdlf 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC) ("...and a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and there will be rumors of things going astray...")[reply]

  Every thing you just listed is pure fact. The census WILL occur in 2010 (In fact there is an artical on this now), The electorial makeup has ALWAYS changed (anyway it just says "likely"). Considering that MAJOR speculaion started just after the 2004 election and some has been scince 2001 if not earlier, what he said was a fact scince he only said "expected".Wolfpackfan72 20:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Speculation by whom? If it's by well-known political commentators then, by all means, add such content to the article(s) with sources. Otherwise, it's not

  verifiable, and all the article contains is scheduling information. android79 21:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete per Android79. Additional argument: what can we say about these elections that we can't say about the presidential election of 3000? If you argue that this article is encyclopedic, then we should have an article for every presidential election up to and beyond 3000, which is absurd. — DLJessup (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and PROTECT the article from recreation. Andros 1337 19:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, we must find a solution to protect this page from future entries like this.--Sina 21:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to recreate after the 2008/2012/2016 elections, respectively... --Kinu ^t/_c 07:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These pages will just be recreated again and again, and nominated for deletion again and again, until they almost become relevant. If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Ewlyahoocom 12:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, no, they'll just be protected against recreation. Since when is "vandals will ignore deletion decisions" a rationale for keeping something? Postdlf 16:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP- We'll need it for 2012!
  • — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.218.58 (talk • contribs)
• Keep only 2012 delete the rest. --
  hablar ver 17:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • May I add that we have an article for the
    hablar ver 17:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Two things: 1) even if the 2024 Olympics were to be kept, the 2012 election "article" was previously deleted, making it a speedy deletion regardless of what happens to other articles. Absent deletion review consensus, it should never have been recreated. 2) as the 2024 Olympics "has yet to be organized," no information actually exists for it beyond scheduling, so that should be deleted for the same reasons as these. Postdlf 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Summer Olympics. Postdlf 21:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at least 2012; there has been substantial speculation (by academics and professional politicians) about this election, in terms of predicting the effect that the demographic changes revealed in the 2010 census will have in redistributing the Electoral College. e.g., the expected increased clout of red states. I would prefer just an article on the 2012 election season, but we do not seem to have those sorts of articles. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. We can create the articles of Olimpic Games in the future, can we? I suggest winter and summer separately:-) Protected against recreation. --
  Mane 14:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • This deletion debate is not about any Olympic games. --
    hablar ver 20:33, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete. No additional meaningful information provided. Erath 18:38, 8 March 2006 (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.