Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presumptive nominee


 * 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. A merger, if still desired, can be discussed elsewhere.  Sandstein  17:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is just a dictionary definition of a made up term. It should be in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. Why not have "unreliable car" or "hot date" or "blue trousers" as articles. It's just two words, presumptive and nominee. It is not a political office. I presume Obama to be president so why not Presumptive President. I expect Ralph Nader to lose very badly so why not "presumptive super-loser". This article needs to be stopped or Wikipedia is a joke.Presumptive (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * MERGE: This article should be merged with the Candidate article, it seems to make more sense there. It IS more than a dictionary definition though, so it should'nt be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.213.165 (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Formatting of AfD fixed. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, this is essentially a dictionary entry. Uvaduck (talk) 00:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not necessarily a bad concept for an article, but this version is pure OR. Could be workable with a shift to concentration on how when and why the media uses the term, but that would require a lot of tune-up. Townlake (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete hard to see how this can be expanded properly beyond a dictionary definition... it could be piled with minute trivia listing all "presumptive nomienees" ever but that doesn't seem encyclopedic. Nomination looks dictionary defintion-ish too. --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that this article is currently linked to from the main page (T:ITN) --Rividian (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Article needs sources but it's already more than a dicdef. Pburka (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. The question of when to desginate the "presumptive nominee" has played a major role in the 2008 primary season, and the term has widespread use, so it is certainly possible to provide sources on the topic.  So I agree not at all with the nominator.  I do agree with Townlake that a rewrite and sourcing is required, or stubification with minimal sourcing for the time being, but I don't see deletion as necessary. -- 18.244.6.28 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Candidate: it's a similar enough topic, and there's widespread precedent for discussing related concepts in one article: for example, Nonflammable and Flammable are both aspects of Flammability, and the Wright brothers don't have their own articles. Surely this could be merged into the other one.  Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This probably makes the most sense. This is a term related to being a candidate for political office, it belongs in that article. --Rividian (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I still favor deletion, but this is a viable alternative. Townlake (talk) 14:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge - It would probably make more sense there. It is more than a dicdef, though.  Soxred  93  02:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is not a new term. Google it. Also, this article has existed since 2004 or 2005. It's not harming anyone to keep it. No one should have to scroll through the "Politics" article just to read a sentence about a Presumptive Nominee, so I think this should exist. You people have only noticed it's existance after it was added that Obama is a presumptive nominee. Since it's on the front page, we are getting a lot of skeptics bringing hate on this. I think this should stay.--Xxhopingtearsxx (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep I think it's a pretty good article. We shouldn't have to skip through the whole Candidate article just to find something about PResumptive nominees. This deserve it's own article as much as Bexley, Ohio deserves not to be in the Columbus, Ohio article. Keep the Presumptive nominee article. It has been there for years and I think there could be good information added, too.159.61.240.222 (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It is not a "made up term." Its a real and unique enough term used, yes, the article needs to be cleaned up for sure/expanded, but it can grow more with more encyclopedic content. Redirecting to "candidate" doesn't really cut it, the reader won't get any encyclopedic content on presumptive nominees, "candiate" is too vague. Epson291 (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's useful to the reader and informative about a real term - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:USEFUL? It would be useful to define every term a dictionary would, but we're not a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator is someone who obviously does not understand the Wikipedia concept, only registered for the purpose of nominating this AFD, perhaps to have some laughs. Ridiculous. --Rita Moritan (talk) 15:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How is it obvious that the nominator does not understand Wikipedia concepts? Also, what does any of this have to do with the actual article? BassoProfundo (talk) 23:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete -- maybe replace its links with links to wiktionary? There's not much that can be said here except for a definition of the term. Coemgenus 15:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NEO says "To support... an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." A lot of the keep voters seem to merely want to keep the article because they've heard of the term, but policy and inclusion guidelines are about more than just keeping articles on subjects we've heard of deleting articles on topics we haven't heard of, so a proper close of this AFD will involve looking at whether there is actually any evidence that there are sources about this term... right now there are just sources that use this term in passing. --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Nom is a Single-purpose account and this term is used enough that it deserves a page. Similar to superdelegate, the term's frequent use in the current election has cemented its place in history and it can be expanded upon contain much more than just a dictionary definition.  The term is used and discussed in the media in great detail.  See, for example, an NPR piece discussing what it means to be the presumptive nominee (link). Oren0 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Although I disagree with your overall position, and I don't think the nominator is particularly relevant, I'd like to thank you for providing an actual source to demonstrate the article's notability. That being said, I don't think that the linked segment focuses on the meaning of being a presumptive nominee as opposed to true one. Without more clear sources on this distinction, I am in favor of a merge with Candidate. BassoProfundo (talk) 23:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, optionally redirect to Candidate - in spite of the assertions that this is a "good" article and in spite of the fact that the nominator may, indeed, be a single-purpose account, this article is far from appropriate for Wikipedia. There are no sources to establish notability - the sources in the article merely show that Bush, Kerry, Obama and McCain are/have been presumptive nominees, and are little more than examples of it being used.  The article delves into some interesting discussion on the nomination process - any of which belongs elsewhere - but in the end, does not establish "presumptive nominee" as anything more than a neologism and a dictionary definition which it is not likely to rise above. Arkyan 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak, presumptive keep. The term has been thrown about enough recently to be notable, and I don't know if it's similar enough to "candidate" (we assume McCain and Obama will be the choices at conventions, but things could happen between now and August/September that would cause changes) for a merge. If "delete" becomes consensus, I won't be saddened, however. Spell4yr (talk) 05:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with Candidate for reasons stated above. The bottom part of the article (Obama example) should be removed as recentism. -- Alexf42 10:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Achingly Strong Keep - as a Canadian, the American political system is very much alien to me and series of shorter articles are far more useful than a lot of merged ones.139.48.25.61 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is an important aspect of the American political system, is relevant and useful, and should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmhebert (talk • contribs) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs work, but it is a notable subject and should remain in Wikipedia.— Chris!  c t 19:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This article is, as stated, a dictionary definition of a media-created term. It's only use is to write shorter headlines. Not wikipedia-worthy.Zavtrakat (talk) 20:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a media-created term, but considering the media's role in American politics, it is a valid term nonetheless. Lovelac 7 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an essential part of modern American politics. For example, now that Obama is the presumptive nominee, he can spend his time and effort fighting McCain instead of Clinton. The same goes for McCain as well. As for this particular article, it needs work, but it could be a useful page with a little effort. I say that we keep it for now, and if the article's not substantially better by the Democratic and Republican conventions, we should then look to merge it into another article. Lovelac 7 01:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Like it or not, the concept of "presumptive nominee" has played a big part in this year's campaigns, and isn't likely to go away. Editors are actively improving the article.  If it ever was deleteworthy as just a "dictionary definition", it shouldn't have taken until 2008 for an article first written in 2004 to be declared so.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Darrow (talk • contribs) 02:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -clearly referenced in the article as a notable concept used in third party publications. The content is also currently applicable to the US only, so at nearly the same size as candidate merging it would unduly slant that article. The historical content makes this much more than a dictionary definition. As the nominator is a single purpose account, given the subject and timing I feel it is impossible to assume good faith about this nomination. SPA nominations need to be rejected on principle in my mind. MickMacNee (talk) 16:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, Do Not Merge -- As per MickMacNee, merging would unbalance the other article towards being primarily American. The subject is noteworthy, and is expandable, with plenty of potential to be written on. Fieari (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Merging it would make it seem un-important, but it really is. — ComputerGuy890100  Talk to meWhat I've done to help Wikipedia 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

2)Strong Keep. Just as superdelegate is very important now bc of this historic election, presumptive nominee is being repeatedly used by media. So the youth who come want to know what that title means and why Obama/McCain are called that instead of just 'pres candidate'. It is not a "made up term". Yes the article needs to be cleaned up for sure/expanded, but it can grow more with more encyclopedic content. Redirecting to "candidate" doesn't really cut it bc the reader won't get any encyclopedic content on presumptive nominees on that article page. 70.108.123.119 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This subject can clearly be expanded and is worth the article. It is a noteworthy term used by every major news source. Its not something thats better off in a dictionary because its not a word it's two words and a worthwile term. Certanily can be expanded and with more and or better refsVintrino (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is relevant and related to the American political system, and since it has been here for something like nearly five years why did the person decide that now this article should go? Obviously if for nearly five years there have been no complaints - why complain now?
 * Strong Keep. --99.230.153.253 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)User:Xinyu
 * Keep - more than a dictionary word, because it is a concept that can be quite complex. Ingolfson (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not WP:MADEUP --Wiendietry (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick search provided some evidence of the term being discussed, and not just used here and here. RMHED (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - 1) Yeah like User:Xinyu said, this article has been here 4 5yrs, so y now does have a problem w it? This term IS IN NO WAY like 'blue trousers or the other bullsh*t examples Presumptive (talk) gave.


 * 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.