Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2008

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 17:16, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 2008
Article is speculative; should be considered for deletion such as 2006 Maryland State Senate District 31 Election. Jrlformd, 18:42 UTC
 * Strong keep. This article contains much information that is not speculation. It spells out the process to be undertaken during the campaign and chronicles the activities of candidates who are currently undertaking active steps towards a candidacy in 2008.  It also provides an NPOV list of potential candidates for President and Vice President on the major party tickets.  Moreover, unlike the election for one State Senate district, the race for President of the United States begins in earnest the day after the previous election. - Jord 18:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a very important article. The first search result for ?U S Presidential Election 2008? in google is this page. . Information like Timeline, Opinion Polling, Candidates actively pursuing 2008 candidacy are in no way speculation. - --Boshtang 19:07, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nomination is clearly in retaliation to this. Xezbeth  19:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am usually loathe to see articles of a speculative nature but the point has been made that the campaign for the 2008 election is already under way.  I do find the exhaustive list of "names being floated" a little overboard and more along the lines of speculation, but as a whole the article is good enough to hang on to. Arkyan 19:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. And equating the races for President of the US and for State Senator from Maryland is ridiculous. -R. fiend 20:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominating this valid article is not helping the author of the Maryland article's cause. Mike H 20:09, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Disruptive VfD nominations are not productive. ElBenevolente 20:10, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. All election are not the same. This article is an absolute keep. Carrp | Talk 20:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete The clue is all the "may do," "may begin," "possible candidates include..." An encyclopedia is a repository of knowledge, not speculations about what might happen. If it's not deleted it should heavily edited to remove speculation and restrict itself to events that have occurred. Also, whatever the motivations of the nominator this is not a "ridiculous" nomination nor disruptive. Demi 20:18, 2005 Mar 8 (UTC)
 * Keep. The election is in a sense already underway. I would argue that speculation isn't inherrantly a bad thing. The problem with the Maryland article was more its insifnificance than its level of speculation. DaveTheRed 20:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Maybe we should send Jrlformd a link to don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. --Deathphoenix 20:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep.--Sina 21:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Already a strong, interesting page.  -- John Fader (talk &bull; contribs) 23:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. There is absolutely no reason to delete this page. The 2008 Election is a completely valid subject for an article. The 2004 Election artilce was created long before the campaign began. -- Old Right 00:05, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. But it should be cleaned up and all speculation and political-insider gossip and rumor-mongering should be removed from it.  --BM 01:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep; valid topic, and it's looking like a pretty good article so far. Antandrus 01:45, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 02:43, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, This is an important current event, is very newsworthy, and is kept up well. Speculation is an important part of this topic at this stage, but is also clearly labeled on the page.  Sometimes the lists stretch a bit and should be tidied up, but this certainly doesn't mean the whole page should be deleted. --Aranae 04:11, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, There was a long and speculative list of potential candidates but that appears to have moved to the talk page. Now, the list of candidates is only of those persuing a 2008 candidacy. Also, if there are people who have formed opinions about the 2008 election, it is acceptable to report these opinions in an NPOV way (meaning reporting that there exist people who hold an opinion instead of stating the opinions as if the article was asserting them). There being speculative or POV information on the article means the article needs NPOV work, but not to be deleted entirely. Q0 05:03, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We had an article about the 2004 election before the election took place. This is taken to more of an extreme, but the information on the page is still very useful and encyclopedic.  07:41, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. And please, bring back the list of potential candidates who may make a run, albeit speculative, that list was informative. There is some speculation in the article, but the subject is very encyclopedic and very important. This nomination would make the Extreme Deletion Squad proud. Sjakkalle 12:24, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This information is very useful for the many people interested in keeping track of the 2008 election, which is ALREADY in progress. But please DO NOT bring back the huge long list of possible people. That list included mostly eligible people, 90% of whom won't be running. Just include people who have expressed interest in running or those who have a strong citizen draft going for them. - 149.4.108.9 15:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Keep. It would silly to delete this. - Dickdexter, 21:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. While I agree that the nomination was probably made in spite, this is still speculation about a future event.  Yes, we had an article for the 2004 election before the event but if you look at what that did to the community, that should be considered as evidence in favor of deleting, not precedent for keeping.  The verifiable content in the current version of this article is more appropriate to WikiNews than to Wikipedia (which, I suppose, means that I would support transwiki).  Rossami (talk) 00:32, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and ban nominator. Neutralitytalk 01:12, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. --Goobergunch|? 04:18, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Abuse of VfD.  Suggest abusing the user in return.  Chris 22:22, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Informative, esp. for people outside the USA. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 23:24, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Keep everything about this article. It is fascinating to read. 7:15, 11 Mar 2005
 * Keep. Even after the 2008 election is over, people will want to know about the events leading up to the election.  Besides, we will eventually have to write an article about the 2008 election, so it was an excellent idea to start this far in advance, as the news is breaking.  It is MUCH easier to write about these things now than it will be once the election is over, because the stuff is fresh on our minds.  --Chris 16:38, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note Just to make it clear, this is not me. ; ) Chris 15:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. This will make an interesting ongoing documentary. Professor water 01:34, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's already talk of that election buzzing on talk radio (surprise!). - Lucky 6.9 09:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Samboy 10:37, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very informative for people outside the United States --Nicobn 03:22, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I've already referred to the potential candidates list on more than one occasion; it's useful information. -- Seth Ilys 19:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. One of Wikipedia's best articles. Philwelch 20:23, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.