Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican 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) 09:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Violates WP:CRYSTAL since it currently only contains unverifiable speculation, with no references. It also premature because the 2012 United States presidential election is not even over yet, and therefore the entire subject largely depends on whether Mitt Romney or Barack Obama wins the election in November. These arguments are somewhat similar to this AFD discussion in 2008 when Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 was created prematurely. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:14, 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) 05:28, 11 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 Republican Party presidential primaries in 2016," which is not enough to base an article on. Mangoe (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 17:14, 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) 01:24, 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) 04:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is plenty of sources to meet the standards for WP:N. Tons of polling data, news stories, etc. Casprings (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is nothing particularly valid to say about this topic yet, mostly just pure speculation. After the election is called on the night of November 6, feel free to go ahead and start the article if there are reliable sources to base it on. But until then, this article is in crystal ball territory. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 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  03:46, 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) 21:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I came here looking for polls because I know there have been polls and wikipedia is like a processed search engine. Thats why I love it! That is enough to justify an article. Hard to believe there is speculation before this election is over, but there is. Romney is an obvious possibility for re-election. Rand Paul is frequently named. Ron Paul also. Chris Christie has been named. Rick Santorum would have the next in line rights. Deleting this is overzealous and serves no constructive purpose.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The article will certainly become valid as time goes on, but at this point, there is very little to say about it that would not be pure speculation.  Rorshacma (talk) 19:24, 18 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) 15:26, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TOOSOON per Rorshacma. 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.