Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016


 * 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. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 09:28, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as it is premature and only full of speculation. The 2012 United States presidential election is not even over yet, and so the article's subject will largely depend on whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney wins the election, and the state of the country a few years from now when the next presidential election process begins. The only citation currently on this article is to a poll asking people who would they favor as possible candidates. Hillary Clinton has not even verified yet if she will even run in 2016. All other content is unsourced. These arguments are somewhat similar to this AFD discussion in 2008 when Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There is also this AFD discussion in 2009 when Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Furthermore, United States presidential election, 2016 is already a protected redirect due to WP:CRYSTAL problems. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Userfy or redirect - Reading the other votes, I have changed my vote to either userfy or redirect. The author obviously had the best intentions. SwisterTwister   talk  02:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Delete - Agreed, the article is speculation for now. It is certainly possible that several if not all candidates may not actually run.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as being longer than "there will almost certainly be Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2016," which is not enough to base an article on. Mangoe (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I guess I should do some work on this since I did start it. That said, I will do that.  However, there are enough sources that speculate on 2016 to make it WP:N.  As per Future event . ""Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" but What Wikipedia is not does list specific criteria for reporting the anticipation of a future event.  Most such events "are prima facie unencyclopedic, because they are unverifiable until they have actually occurred."  Only if "planning or preparation for the event is already in progress", U.S. presidential election, 2012, and that planning or preparation is itself worthy of merit, e.g., affecting biographies of candidates.  See election for more on this particular type of event."  Given that the both conventions put in place the basic rules to set the calendars, planning has already started.  Casprings (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Even then, there might still be very little verified content to warrant a separate article for several months, and should therefore instead be merged and redirected to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually on sources you would be fine. There is actually enough sources to support an article.  For example, we have early polling data and interested parties already were meeting with the Iowa delegation at the convention.   It already meets WP:N.  In a way, the fact that it meets WP:N is rather sad, but if you look at it objectively, it does.  However, on my part I should have started this when I had enough time to really do something with it.  Casprings (talk) 02:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. As with the corresponding Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article, I recommend waiting until the election is called on November 6 to re-create this article. In addition, I recommend that the editors who work on this article in the future develop standards to determine which candidates count as being speculated about for the 2016 primaries, as was done at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive 1 and later talk archives from that page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as premature and per crystal. We have plenty of time to create the article appropriately when there is more activity and, more importantly, more certainty.  -- No  unique  names  03:47, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep No matter the outcome of the 2012 race, there will be a Democratic primary in 2016. It will probably be more expandable as time goes on. LM103 (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Redirect to United States presidential election, 2016 for the time being, then move to namespace when there is more activity and more substantial sourcing becomes available. For now, WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Speculation by reliable sources can meet Verifiability since that policy only means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that information, speculation or otherwise, comes from a reliable source. However, the problem at this point in time is noted in WP:RSOPINION: "some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier." There may be things to say about this topic with inline qualifiers, but there is not enought encyclipedic things to say about this topic yet. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON per JayJasper. Bearian (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.