Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton


 * 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 Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Planned presidential transition of Hillary Clinton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is about an event that is never going to happen. It is thus not noteable. If anything, it should probably be redirected to the article on Hillary's campaign. Jtrainor (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTALBALL; never occurred, and therefore serves as pure speculation. Don't redirect to the article on the campaign as the activities of the campaign would be entirely separate from the organization of the inauguration by committee. Mélencron (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC) (struck as erroneous vote by user)
 * Keep the related deletion discussion for Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney (Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney) notes that "planning" occurred even if the "transition" didn't - this article also appears to be about the "planning" as opposed to the "transition" and the "planning" was a notable, multi-million dollar project that generated standalone coverage in RS DarjeelingTea (talk) 15:55, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect This very short stub can easily be made a section of the campaign article. Failing that, delete as not independently notable. Only 1 of the sources is actually specifically about Clinton's transition. The rest are generic "transition to whoever the next president is" articles, which would actually be more appropriate to be umbrella-ed somewhere under Obama as a function of his outgoing administration. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to redirect, except my own search indicates there is a lot of expansion that can be done to this article, though I otherwise agree with you that it's not in a good state at present. DarjeelingTea (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Modern presidential transitions are inherently notable, even for the losing candidate. Please see Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney. A decision that was reinforced by Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump.  As was made clear in those two discussions, the process of planning a presidential transisiton is a significant act of governance in its own right.  The professionalim of the transition teams has an enduring impact.  And because it is so important (especially since the 2 recent federal reform acts funding and smoothing the process by such official aid as permitting security clearances on nominees ot begin as soon as the vote is taken at the party nominating convention,) the transition planning of both candidates come in for ongoing press and academic scrutiny.  E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)   Requesting that you take a moment to look at the precedent set by Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney and Articles for deletion/Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump, where the issues you raise are discussed. E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * redirect - This material is best merged into the Clinton campaign article. Planned events do not make history. Same goes for the Romney transition. Bcharles (talk) 06:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to campaign article. — JFG talk 16:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to campaign article. Considering how divided both candidates were on policy, the article has worthwhile information on what could have been, but since it will not actually take place there does not seem to be a viable reason to have a standalone article.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to campaign article. Given how little information is here, there's not really anything worth merging. Orser67 (talk) 17:22, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to campaign article. I don't think there's enough material here to justify a fork.LM2000 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2017 (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.