Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presidency of Joe Biden (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep per WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. (non-admin closure) jps (talk) 15:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Presidency of Joe Biden
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no presidency yet and for all we know it might never transpire. What does exist is the presidential transition of Joe Biden. Everything that is in this article now and everything that could possibly be in it before the inauguration belongs in the article Presidential transition of Joe Biden. The article is therefore both premature and redundant. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 23:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed this was speedy kept six days ago. I don't believe it should have been speedy kept because the article is entirely redundant. A discussion is warranted. Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion and speedy kept last week. Repeated nominations are disruptive and unproductive. KidAd   talk  00:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep and take the nominator to WP:AE/warn for WP:ARBAP2. Tendentious nomination. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 00:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The nominator should withdrawn their nomination and close this discussion. KidAd   talk  00:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * & - nominator has also been disruptive in regards to Jill Biden and Dough Emhoff.  cookie monster  (2020)  755  19:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's disruptive is closing a discussion only two hours after nomination. Roughly 30% comments here are in favour of not having this article, which surely suggests that there is something worth discussing. But you may take me anywhere you wish. Surtsicna (talk) 19:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't think the original discussion qualified for Speedy keep under the criteria on that page though --DannyS712 (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:DRAFTIFY The nominator is correct in stating that this is, at present, redundant to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. The nominator is also correct in stating that the previous discussion should not have been closed as WP:SPEEDYKEEP (especially not as a WP:NAC). I will note that the proper course of action for that would have been to take it to WP:DELREV, however. At any rate, WP:DELREASON (Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate) – this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK), WP:DELREASON (Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes) – it is impossible to attribute something that has not yet happened to WP:Reliable sources), and WP:DELREASON (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia – specifically WP:NOTFUTURE) all apply. On the other hand, barring unforeseen events, we'll want to have an article with this title in the future, hence WP:DRAFTIFYing is a perfectly cromulent WP:Alternative to deletion. I suppose it would be possible to have a procedural close for this discussion and take the previous one to WP:DELREV, but that seems overly bureaucratic to me. TompaDompa (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This article was nominated for deletion and speedy kept last week.  // Timothy ::  talk  04:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Both the articles on the previous two presidencies were created moths before the start of those respective presidencies, without being deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.176.94.161 (talk) 11:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect or draft until inauguration. Ҥ (talk) 11:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify until inauguration. WP:TOOSOON (Alternatively, redirect to presidential transition of Joe Biden until inauguration — Ad Meliora Talk∕Contribs 11:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify or Redirect to the target already suggested until he's actually the president. This is clearly a case of WP:TOOSOON and it wasn't really addressed in the other nomination to a meaningful degree. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep — procedural. Firstly, a nom not even a week after the first nom is disruptive. Secondly, reliable sources discuss a Biden presidency, and those reliable sources do not entertain the nominator's opinion that "for all we know it [a Biden presidency] might never transpire" (instead, they argue opposite and paint Trump's challenges to the election as inconsequential to the election result). Thirdly, as a point of interest (preempting WP:OTHER comments) a few days after Trump was elected we had the same article for Trump — — despite the results not having been certified; as such, this article seems pretty consistent. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk  15:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Closing a discussion within two hours and with only two comments is disruptive. This is not about endorsing Trump's delusions. This is about there being no need for the article Presidency of Joe Biden when there is an article called Presidential transition of Joe Biden. It is redundant at best and WP:CRYSTAL at worst. It is also not an opinion that a 77-year-old in the midst of a global pandemic might not live another couple of months. Yes, we have had silly and unnecessary articles before, but it is never too late to change bad practices. For example, we are now much less keen on having articles about royal foetuses than we were in 2012. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is a bizarre nomination that wastes editors' time. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Joe Biden is not the president of the USA. This is so blatently obvious that I am voting to speedily delete. USA government website: "The 20th amendment to the Constitution specifies that the term of each elected President of the United States begins at noon on January 20 of the year following the election. Each president must take the oath of office before assuming the duties of the position." It's November 15, 2020 in the USA today. If Joe Biden were to die today (Joe Biden is 77 years old), historians would not consider him to have been a U.S. President. And there are no third party reliable sources indicating that Joe Biden is the president of the USA. So the article not only defies reality, it violates the Wikipedia rule relating to reliable sources being used too. And because this article denies reality and engages in fortune telling, it violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) rule also. There have been academic studies indicating that Wikipedia articles are politically biased (see: Ideological bias on Wikipedia) and this article gives more ammunition to Wikipedia's critics.Knox490 (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You say that as if Wikipedia's critics in this case cared about Wikipedia's ideological slant. They only care here because it threatens the narrative they desperately want to believe. —A little blue Bori  v^_^v  Takes a strong man to deny... 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You appear to believe that the point of this nomination is to endorse Donald Trump's delusions. It is not. The point is that we have an article that is entirely redundant to another. Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your intentions as far as your nomination. There is no Biden presidency and that is an objective reality. There may be no Biden presidency. I personally know of American man in the 30s who had a heart attack and he was in good shape. Biden is 77. The article engages in fortune telling.Knox490 (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Draftify: It's too early, but we should still be able to edit it in the meantime. Nojus R (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't understand the need as the page literally states, that it has not begun yet and he has been projected to win by over 300 electoral college votes as of November 15, by multiple news sources. Further, I created the page for the Presidency of Jair Bolsonaro in November 2018 for a Presidency that started in January 2019, as media has already begun documenting the process. If needed maybe a link to Trumps contesting the election should be made or a section, but not the deletion of the whole page. Leaky.Solar (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – he will be the 46th president in two months. cookie monster  (2020)  755  18:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Same rationale given in User:Reywas92's closure a week ago should apply here. riffic (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. we are addressing a valid topic by providing this entry. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep What Toughpigs said. This is a disruptive nomination on an article that is obviously a major developing topic, and there's no need to wait in this case. This is not the same topic as the transition and should not be redirected there. Reywas92Talk 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your closure of a discussion after only two hours and two comments was disruptive. You should not have closed it at all since you are obviously not impartial, per WP:BADNAC. But do tell us, what can an encyclopedia say about this topic that does not apply to the transition? Surtsicna (talk) 20:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - Nomination comes less than one week after the last deletion nomination, with nothing much to add to the last one. Pahunkat (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You did not take part in the first discussion (unsurprisingly, since it lasted only two hours), therefore you have presented no argument of your own. The argument presented here is that the article is redundant to Presidential transition of Joe Biden. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You could argue that at a current state Presidential transition of Joe Biden is important, however this article satisfies WP:EVENTCRITERIA and thus should not be deleted Pahunkat (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, per WP:FUTURE, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Conspiratorial what-ifs are nothing but supposition. KidAd   talk  21:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Draftify - until Biden takes office, on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Biden is president-elect and is very much set to take office in January. There are no reliable secondary sources to suggest otherwise. I'd suggest maybe at the very most to use tentative terminology in the article itself before the official electoral college meeting in December. - Bettydaisies
 * Yes, that is why we have the article Presidential transition of Joe Biden. That's where everything about his plans for presidency belongs. There is literally nothing that belongs in Presidency of Joe Biden instead of Presidential transition of Joe Biden. Presidency of Joe Biden is merely a placeholder article. Surtsicna (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The transition simply details the point of time from now until January. Information about his actual presidency, such as his recently-appointed Chief of Staff, should be included on its proper page. There are multiple precedents for the creation of this page regarding prior president-elects, both inside and outside of the United States. There is no legitimate indication that Biden will not become president, and his presidency is a significant of enough event to warrant its own page. It's as good as definitive and a bit of a waste to delete it. I agree with the above reasoning regard ing WP:EVENTCRITERIA and WP:FUTURE. - Bettydaisies


 * Redirect Biden IS the President-Elect and a General Election result will not be overturned. But it does seem premature to have an article about a presidency that doesn't exist yet. So, my vote is to turn this page into a redirect until Jan. 20th. That way, none of the present content is lost and a valid redirect will not be lost in the backwaters of Draft World. Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep – Topic of much discussion. There is ~0% chance the Electoral College overturns this outcome, meaning the only way this administration does not transpire is if Biden dies before the inauguration (which is not likely), and even then, the article could just be moved to Presidency of Kamala Harris with some modifications. Master of Time   ( talk ) 01:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per reasons listed better than I could by others above, and per Pahunkat. Paintspot Infez (talk)
 * Draftify until January 20. 122.60.173.107 (talk) 07:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article's quality, contents, and references cited is irrelevant when it comes to AFD discussions. The fact of the matter is that the article will grow as time goes by, and sources will, without a doubt, become available as time moves on. This meets WP:N, WP:GNG, and any others by a long shot. There's no recourse for argument than what is expected in Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and this page vaults over it.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   07:11, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is perhaps the most remarkable example I have ever seen of the Wpedian refusal to admit the the real world exists, and will go on existing, and that some things are predictable beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not supposed to be here playing a game with how absurd a conclusion we can draw from our own invented arbitrary distinctions. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Presidency of Donald Trump was created almost immediately after the 2016 election. This isn't WP:CRYSTAL, and if it turns out it is, which is exceptionally unlikely, we can review it then. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.