Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012


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

AFD #2 was closed as "merge" in November 2012. An editor unmerged it in July 2013 without any apparent discussion. This page is full of WP:CRYSTALBALL guesses, which aren't encyclopedic. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 appears to have all the necessary information, and this is not a likely search term, so I believe it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:33, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article just collects a lot of vague media speculation at the time, all of which was and is irrelevant since the only view that mattered was Romney's and he only seriously considered a handful of people. Some of the entries put in the article show a lack of understanding of American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: for example, there was never even a remote chance that Romney would pick Rand Paul or Nikki Haley or Donald Trump (!). The subject can be adequately dealt with in Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and does not need a separate article.  Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. In politics, what people think is true is nearly as important as reality itself, and the speculation itself is therefore notable. Also, the Romney team's actual thought process could be added to this article now that new information is coming out about that, which would really flesh out this article. So the subject is definitely notable. -LtNOWIS (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per rationale of LtNOWIS above. Obviously satisfies WP:GNG.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Subject is notable and easily passes WP:GNG. A main objection from the earlier Afd's - before the article was retitled and refocused (full disclosure: by me) - was that it was misleading because it implied that there were "candidates", even though none (save the eventual nominee) had actually been nominated or were actively seeking office.  That has been rectified, the article's subject is now the veep candidate selection process rather than the "candidates". Per LtNOWIS, there may be room for improvement and additional information, but there is significant press coverage of the speculation about, and the eventual selection of, the vp nominee. So notability is clearly established.--JayJasper (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Note that there is clear precedent for such an article (Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2008, Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2008, Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2004). Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument for keeping, but given the longstanding protocol of maintaining symmetry among the U.S. election articles, it would seem prudent to nominate all these articles together and they should be all be either kept, deleted, or merged/redirected as a unit - given that all are comparable in content and sourcing.--JayJasper (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is important and notable as shown by sources. Kitfoxxe (talk) 14:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - I don't like it. Nope nope nope. But there are independently published sources galore dealing substantially with the subject which attest that this is a notable topic. The fact that it was merged once before does not mean that it must be merged for all time. In fact, given the ponderous bloat showing in the sourcing, I can't recommend it. Carrite (talk) 23:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The topic is definitely notable and worthy of inclusion, but I'm concerned that this article primarily focuses on speculation by the media. The rest of the article doesn't necessarily add much that wouldn't be covered by the main page about the election. If there was more direct info from the Romney campaign about the vetting process, I would support keeping this article. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 17:50, 18 November 2013 (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.