Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 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   no consensus. A majority thinks the article is not needed, but we have no consensus for deletion.  Sandstein  05:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There is no reason to have an article that relays media speculation and WP:CRYSTALBALLing about this matter. The vice-presidential nominee will be chosen by Mitt Romney in August, and speculation by talking heads being paid to make up articles does not mean that a Wikipedia article should be devoted to their prognostication. Of the twenty-three names on this list (and surely someone could dig up a dozen or so more names that have been meaninglessly thrown out there), only a few actually have any chance of being chosen, and of course Mr. Romney could decide on someone else entirely. A few of these can be disqualified by common sense (Trump, Bachmann), and many have vehemently denied any interest in the spot or already refused a theoretical offer (Daniels, Haley, Jindal, Rice, several others). Of course, they've all claimed they weren't interested and you could say things can change, but it's quite clear that many of these do not belong. Even with a few likely short-listers, we simply do not need a separate article listing these names. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 has a short section about the VP pick that could be expanded with the likely possibilities. But a collection of unsubstantiated hypothetical speculation does not warrant a full article here. Reywas92 Talk 17:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as crystal balling. When Romney actually announces his chosen running mate, we'll be more than able to cover that properly with reliable sources, and readers are already more than able to seek out information on the potential candidates since virtually all of them already have their own Wikipedia articles anyway — but there's no place or need on Wikipedia for an article about the advance speculation itself. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep On some topics, even speculation is notable. This is one of them--as the sources show. The nom thinks some are unlikely, but that's his private political judgment. If there are good sources showing comment on them in RSs, that's what we go by. The nom's speculations are OR--not so the article.  DGG ( talk ) 22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I would be glad to provide sources why many of these people are NOT going to the nominee; it is not just OR. A Wikipedia article is not the place to show this speculation, even that that shows the merits and dismerits of the candidates.


 * Keep: Remove unsourced speculation but Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2008 (created February 2008!) shows this article should exist.--Milowent • hasspoken  23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Um, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and that should be removed as well. Keep the names of the shortlisted contenders in the main campaign article, but such a long list and an image gallery are simply superfluous. Reywas92 Talk
 * Your misuse of otherstuff is amusing. Apparently no one even thought to nominate it for deletion in 2008.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. There is some crystal-ballery involved in this subject, but on the other hand the speculation itself is likely to be notable for the next few months. I would support keeping this article only if standards were instituted to indicate who is eligible to be listed (i.e. an individual must have been cited as a potential VP candidate by a certain number of independent reliable sources within a certain time period). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Obviously the topic is notable, and of interest to lots of people. The gallery of pictures is probably not needed, but if a reliable news source says someone might be picked then that should be good enough to include. The lede should clearly state which are, by consensus of serious sources, the most likely.  If readers want to go beyond that, that is their choice. Borock (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Being interesting is not qualification for inclusion, and those interested could also use an expanded section of the main article. Inclusion of anything anyone in the news says just because it's from a reliable source isn't a very good model for Wikipedia. Reywas92 Talk 02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Get rid of the gallery of pictures. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment. The problem is that the moment Romney actually announces his actual pick, a list of everybody who any media pundit on earth ever published a guess that he might pick becomes a moot and unencyclopedic compendium of WP:TRIVIA that nobody will ever actually have any serious need to consult ever again (except perhaps for a quick, transient giggle at how wrong the majority of the "experts" are going to turn out to have been — but that's not the job of an encyclopedia.) Five hundred years from now, when you and I are reincarnated as academics studying the 2012 US presidential election, we're certainly going to need to know who Romney actually picked — but we're not going to have any serious need to investigate who the media pundits were guessing that he might pick three months before his actual pick was actually announced. Which is why I still believe that all articles which serve only to document third parties' advance speculation about what might happen in a future political event fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS — because as soon as his running mate is actually announced, the "encyclopedic" value of a speculative list of potential running mates disappears forever. Which is why this kind of thing certainly might be useful on Wikinews, but it doesn't belong here: it's a current event whose article only has value until the Republican convention actually happens in just a few months, and then will never have any real point or purpose to it ever again. It's not something that belongs in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - A purely crystal ball exercise. There is no such thing as a 'Vice Presidential candidate" in the same way that there are Presidential candidates — in practice a Vice Presidential nominee is named by the Presidential nominee and given a pro forma ratification by the party's nominating convention. The universal set of such potential "Vice Presidential prospects" includes the entire registered list of the party in question's members. An article accumulating media speculation is inherently unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Its a highly notable, "significant impact," "lasting" topic, WP:Notability, especially for politics, with cited information and analysis about the topic. The topic of possible vice presidential candidates is definitely encyclopedic by wikipedia standards since it has long lasting significance. Formal interviews have begun on major networks. Regarding events, Wikipedia says, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." So it is certainly notable.  The photos enhance the topic and should also be kept. This topic is the same as past topics in the series with the same title which also included media speculation. WP:I don't like it is not sufficient reason for requesting deletion. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the Vice-Presidential nominee for the Republican Party a "highly notable", "significant impact", "lasting" topic? Absolutely. Is the list of people that pundits and journalists speculate could be picked to be nominee? Not all all. Looking back to 2008 (and its article), did Sarah Palin's candidacy have "long lasting significance"? Without a doubt. But did the random guesses about other prominent politicians and Republican figures have any? No way. Although Mr. Romney's final decision is surely "a precedent or catalyst", the speculation on it is not. Reywas92 Talk 20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Only one person on this list will actually become the nominee; the other two dozen or so will not. What's going to be the long-lasting significance of a list of people who didn't get picked as the nominee in the end? Bearcat (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In most cases, even actual elected vice-presidents don't have any long-lasting significance. Only nine became president by succession, and all those who became president by election were major political figures and likely candidates anyway.  But the ones that did become president by succession have made several of the most critical and controversial decisions ever made by a US President (in particular, annexing Texas and using nuclear weapons on Japan).  Those choices of VP have been closely examined, and having a contemporaneous account of who else was considered is a useful historical document. Richard Gadsden (talk) 21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, there is a huge difference between "As the presidential nominee, I actually considered these VP possibilities" and "I'm a media talking head and I think this senator and this governor and this also-ran would be a possible choice." I'm not sure how your tangential example is relevant, especially because those were when VP was a contested position at the convention. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I voted Keep, the Delete advocates are making a very good case. Still I will stick with Keep since the topic is of much more than average importance. Borock (talk) 20:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - While there will be obviously much media speculation and coverage on potential VP candidates, they are not "candidates" in the sense of Romney, Newt, etc...being candidates running for public office. This is a sort of synthesized amalgamation of who Romney (or Paul if he can pull off his convention hijack) may possibly choose for his running mate in the fall, consisting almost entirely of media speculation and those who have announced they would decline.  IMO the subject matter would be better treated in a paragraph or two in the Romney 2012 article.
 * Keep the subject receives extensive coverage in reliable sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Where presidential campaigns are concerned, speculation concerning potential candidates - when covered by multiple reliable sources (and is clearly identified as coming from reliable sources, not OR)- is notable. This subject is given significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus meet WP:GNG. However, a rename to "Vice presidential prospects" should be considered, per Carrite's comments.--JayJasper (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete With rare exceptions (e.g. Mike Gravel in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article currently just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that matters is Romney's and he ain't talking.  Some of the entries in the current article are downright daft and show a complete lack of understanding of current American politics on the part of the WP editors involved:  the chance that Romney could pick Rand Paul or Rudy Giuliani is zero, and the chance he could pick Sarah Palin or Donald Trump is less than zero.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete About as utile as a Tarot deck - and below Crystal ball level. Collect (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Speculation over who Romney will pick as VP is given lots of coverage in many sources; however, "candidates" seems an improper term given that one doesn't actually put together a campaign for the job. Canuck 89 (have words with me) 11:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, JayJasper's suggestion of merging into Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 seems like a reasonable idea. Canuck 89 (converse with me) 07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article struck me as a likely case of WP:CRYSTAL when I first came across it a number of days ago. Reliably sourced speculation is still speculation. Sometimes this speculation is fun to read about, especially for political junkies (such as me) who hope Mitt Romney makes a wise selection. However, the only opinions that really matter in the VP selection process belong to Romney and the delegates of the Republican National Convention who will (presumably) officially nominate the selection. What the media think is ultimately irrelevant. Both the 2008 Republican and 2008 Democratic equivalents of this article should also be considered delete-worthy for the same reasons. Let's agree to leave the crystal-balling to Sabato. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 16:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reliably sourced speculation is still reliably sourced. Why purge something that receives significant coverage? We can all agree that the page needs to be renamed but no attempt is being made to claim these are bona fide candidates, just that they receive notable speculation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Speculation and a picture gallery. Also, this article is sufficient for the topic United_States_presidential_election,_2012  The   Wo  rld  16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per User talk:Canuckian89. Gage (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is not kept, merging and redirecting to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 would be a far more prudent move than outright deletion, given the subject's significant coverage in reliable independent sources and relevance to the campaign.--JayJasper (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As JayJasper said, this page would be better merged with Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. The topic hardly merits a page in its own right, but should get a mention of some sort. EEL123 (talk) 10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a notable current event, even though Barack Obama will probably win anyway. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Break for readability

 * Delete: Speculation that is interesting but not notable in the sense that it should have its own page... let's keep this stuff over at the page about Mitt Romney's election as per with JayJasper said. FronkTheFrank (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge with and redirect as JayJasper has suggested. Sure, there are reliable sources and plenty of scattered coverage, but it's not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. As is pointed out above, there isn't even a formal process of picking vice presidential candidates, since they come coupled with their respective presidential candidates. An article like this, at least at present, cannot really blossom into anything substantive. Such a discussion of Romney's potential picks can easily fit within his presidential campaign article.  Tim  meh  01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is not enough space for this material on that particular page. Plus, the speculation here does not derive from the Romney campaign.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? The Romney campaign article is not very long at all and has plenty of space for his VP shortlist. The only reason it's large is the 300+ freaking endorsements and their sources, which need to be split pretty soon. Of course it derives from the Romney campaign; were Santorum the nominee, there would be a different set of possibilities on who complements his style. Reywas92 <b style="color:#45E03A;">Talk</b> 15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that Romney is now presumptive nominee, it makes sense that the VP choice be associated with him. EEL123 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. The list does not derive from the Romney campaign, it derives from news publications.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you do see the connection between the VP choices and the Romney campaign, don't you? EEL123 (talk) 04:03, 13 May 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.