Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Presumptive nominee (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. If anyone wants to start a discussion about a possible redirect and merge then they're welcome to do so in the article's talk page, but there seems to be consensus that the material itself is appropriate for inclusion. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Presumptive nominee
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Forgive me if I do not know the lingo or exact way to do this. After I nominated this, I found that it was nominated in 2008 so I am not the first to think of it. The term "presumptive nominee" is simply a dictionary definition and should be eliminated as an article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary according to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary. Here in Wikipedia, there is rightly an article of car or automobile, but not blue car, white car, black car, etc. Presumptive simply is an adjective of the word "nominee". Besides, there is no news article about presumptive nominee versus actual nominee, so it is just made up, figment of your imagination article. Basically, it is a term used every 4 years in the U.S. when TV doesn't want to say "so and so is practically speaking, has it wrapped up, as nominee". Dharahara (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If there were really a need for a Wikipedia article of Presumptive Nominee, then you should be able to find news articles for the following:

dates that George W. Bush was the presumptive nominee (was it April 1, 2000-July 25, 2000)?

dates that Bill Clinton was the presumptive nominee (was it March 15, 1996-August 1, 1996)? Reference

Why is the title "Presumptive nominee and ____date" not in every U.S. presidential article? See, it is just two words, not a political office. Dharahara (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC
 * Keep References seem to be good and the meaning goes beyond just the sum of the two words, as the article explains. Borock (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Not true. So candidate A is the presumptive nominee only if he is the presumed nominee. No difference.
 * Also important is that the references are all dictionaries or dictionary like sources. There is no CNN news article discussing the presumptive nominees of history or the significance of the term.Dharahara (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, well beyond dicdef at this stage - David Gerard (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And the nominator just tried removing half the article and most of the references, and rewriting the intro so it didn't actually make sens e. Please leave for consideration in this deletion nomination before doing so - David Gerard (talk) 21:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Borock & David Gerard, the term is now well beyond a mere dictionary definition. It is a term commonly used by reliable media sources and in U.S. election related articles in Wikipedia, and easily passes WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * delete references seem primarily definitions and no reference is about the history of presumptive nominee. It doesn't seem like the term is similar to First Lady but closer to tall president or loyal dog, none of which should be articles.Deepavali 2014 (talk) 05:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge to a sensible target - The article not only runs into "WP:DICDEF" issues, but it's literally formatted as a dictionary entry. It has 3 sections: Definition 1, Definition 2, and References. From WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." That it's in dictionaries and thesauruses does not speak to this. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment If it going to be merged, it should be redirected to Candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2015 (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.