Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Presidential election 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. Consensus is that there is not enough sourced content for an article at this time.  Sandstein  06:04, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

US Presidential election 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per Mark83: WP:CRYSTAL Purely speculative article. Even the potential candidates for 2016 party primaries is speculative, never mind the general election. My own comment: "Few sources that do not clearly indicate the intentions of the listed individuals to run for US Presidential election in 2016." ialsoagree (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This is nothing but speculation about a scheduled future event about which nothing can be said that is verifiable and not original research.  Cliff smith  talk  22:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination). There can be no significant content here other than pure speculation until the 2012 election winner is known. Note that the current version of United States presidential election, 2012 was not created until November 2008; prior versions were deleted as crystal ballery. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If this page isn't that different than the one which was already deleted, CSD G4 may apply. Cliff smith  talk  03:50, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Wp:CRYSTAL, which is what happened previously. (Also, Source 2 doesn't show anything.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) &#124; (talk to me) &#124; (What I've done)  22:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course There is already speculation about possible candidates.,  ,  ,  ,  ,  w w w. e x a m i n e r.com/x-43910-Liberal-Examiner~y2010m4d29-Floridas-Crist-likely-leaving-GOP-to-run-as-independent (blocked link, for some reason) ,  in a very quick check from G News, and Ive seen a good deal else also. But, as Ditzy points out, we have a tradition of pretending RSs don't discuss things  in advance.   DGG ( talk ) 04:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Link 1 seemed acceptable, links 2 and 5 both require subscriptions to view (2 appears to be a repeat of 1, 5 doesn't mention 2016 in the abstract at all). Link 3 appears totally unrelated, link 4 addresses the order of primaries and only mentions the 2016 election in passing: "In the 2016 presidential election, the Midwest would go first and the West region last." Link 6 does not work. Link 7 only mentions the 2016 election in passing (and with no substance of importance): "If one were to imagine the winner of the 2016 presidential election, one could easily picture Mike Huckabee." ialsoagree (talk) 05:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG. We run the risk here of more misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL. The event is going to happen. We know that. And reliable sources are already discussing it. Care needs to be taken so that the content of the article isn't overly speculative. And what's left after such care is taken might not be much. But there is still enough. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What reliable sources? DGG posted 2 sources (one required a subscription) that suggests Hillary will not run in 2016. The others are either unrelated, don't work, or only mention the election in passing and with relatively useless information. If reliable sources exist, then they should be posted. Appealing to them without giving examples shouldn't be considered an argument. ialsoagree (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete "The event is going to happen" is not a good argument. So is the Presidential Election in 2024, so let's create that article on the assumption that Hillary Clinton wins the 2016 Democratic nomination but loses the general election and therefore is a contender for 2024 on the assumption that the victorious Republican president has two full terms!! Or we could do the sensible thing and wait until after the 2012 election when the political kaleidoscope has begun to settle from that massive shake to a point where solid assumptions can be made, not wild speculation. Mark83 (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no reason that we should treat crystalballing about the U.S. presidential election any differently than crystalballing about the elections of other nations. The image of the crystal ball is a good analogy for this type of speculation-- a seer peering into their glass orb (in this case, one that's surrounded by a plastic frame and, like all computer monitors, hooked up to electronic hardware and the internet), and then making guesses that boil down to one thing-- whoever might run in 2012 might also run in 2016.  Add whoever you can think of to the list so far--  Mitt Romney might run, Scott Brown might run, Sarah Palin might run, Hillary Clinton might run, Stephen Brockerman might run, etc. etc.  By golly, I'm thinking of running.  Mandsford 22:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and there is no deadline. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  01:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources to show that speculation is rampant in the media and secondary sources already for 2012.  Perhaps, like WP:HAMMER, someone needs to write an essay explaning how WP:CRYSTAL applies to political races.  You kids need some perspective.  2 years ahead is probably enough for most United States elections, but historically, presidential elections have been discussed in reputable sources far in advance - as much as 7 years into the future.  Lloyd Stark was leading for president in 1933 for the election of 1940.  Hillary Clinton's name was mentioned on TV in 1999 for president in 2004 or 2008. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For the benefit of all the "kids" reading the above, "you kids" should be aware that it's a common argumentative technique to imply that the persons who disagree with you as inexperienced, naive, immature, ignorant, etc. and to imply that the persons who agree with you are learned, wise, mature, etc. I think that, more often than not, it backfires.  Mandsford 14:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There also seems to be, once again, an appeal to "plenty of reliable sources" without any example. I still contend that an appeal to sources without presenting them is not an argument and shouldn't be considered. Part of the reason this nomination was made is because there aren't reliable sources. I think the fact that reliable sources aren't being presented (despite the claim they exist) is because they are in fact few and far between or non-existent. ialsoagree (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Stub compendium of mainstream media gossip. Carrite (talk) 19:09, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for now. The sources aren't the best and many of the "possible candidates" are unsourced. We may not have to wait until 2012 as some have suggested, but we need more coverage before this article becomes practical. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:45, 21 May 2010 (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.