Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States 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   no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2016

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)
 * (Please see Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012, which also discussed deleting the 2016 article.)

There is very little information at this time on the 2016 election. Delete the page now so editors don't put a lot of time and effort into it. Reinstate it once it's clear there's an article worth of information available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.247.176 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I don't really think this needs to be deleted, but I don't want a lot of editors doing a lot of work only to see it deleted later. So let's preemptively settle this now, and then move on. IF it gets deleted, please suggest a date after which it may be recreated. —Markles 00:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No need to have a page for an election almost nearly a decade away. Not to mention, the page is poorly written. Jason (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - The quality of the writing should not be an issue. I/we would be happy to improve it, but not if it's just going to be deleted.  that's why I proposed discussing this AFD.—Markles 00:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By poorly written I meant that it was formatted horribly whenever it was written. The citations aren't even real citations, they're just links. If it can't get enough attention to be correctly formatted, then it would be best to delete it until a later date. Besides, the 2012 election article wasn't even allowed to be created without being redirected to the main election article until recently. Why this instance should be any exception is beyond me. Jason (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since when does formatting trump content? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't believe that what is currently on the page is considered actual content. It's just all random disputable bits of information. Jason (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's well-sourced pieces of information relevant to the election of 2016. By all means, remove any info you think is poorly sourced, but by what rationale do you argue that information from major publications like Time, Vanity Fair, Chicago Magazine, and the National Journal should be deleted? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it's all trivial. I can almost certainly guarantee that none of these people will be in the election come 2016. And besides, you even wrote on the talk page admitting that you purposely added false information without an original source. There is no need to have this article until after the 2012 election. Jason (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, do not accuse me of editing in bad faith. I did not add false information to this article. I did ask for help finding a source for a piece of information that I heard on television but was unable to verify in print. Please do not violate WP:AGF again. That said, I'll address your points... 1) Wikipedia policy does not exclude trivial information. 2) Your belief about the inaccuracy of notable sources is both original research and irrelevant to the fact that the sources reported it. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Followup... A slightly modified version of the statement that Jason claimed was false has now been sourced by the Washington Post and USA Today. Please do your research before you accuse people of being liars. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL: the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and speculation about it is well documented. The article needs cleaning, including removal of links to forum postings, but content issues are not a reason for deletion. Ryan Paddy (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The event is notable and will almost certainly take place, but I'm pretty sure there is no widespread speculation or discussion about it yet. Having an article on the 2012 election is worthwhile since people are speculating about that, but 2016 is pushing it. Firestorm (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete — None of the sources I see so far are reliable as far as providing verifiable speculation is concerned. The information is unverifiable speculation as well as original research. Hence, textbook fail of WP:CRYSTAL. MuZemike  ( talk ) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - See the list of reliable sources below. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Way to early to be creating this article. There is no sourced info that is relevant (just people speculating about who may run).  TJ   Spyke   03:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. There is nothing really useful that can be said about the 2016 election now. Eight years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was a state senator who had just lost a Congressional primary in his home district by a 2-to-1 margin. Eight years before the 2000 election, George W. Bush had never been elected to any office at all. Let's wait until election night in 2012 to re-create this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Response - Some readers would find it educational and interesting to compare the early speculation about 2008 to the reality of that election. Just because the pundits' opinions were probably way off the mark does not mean that what they had to say has no lessons to teach. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even the original AfD nominator doesn't think it should be deleted. The points made by those who support deleting it amount to "it's messy". This is admittedly true, but that's just an invitation to improve it. While it is a long way out, there has already been plenty of speculation. If you don't like the sources I provided off the cuff, then dig up some better ones; don't just trash other editors' work because you don't feel like doing the research. Besides, attempts will continue to be made to revive this article, and in the long run, it's WP:SNOWBALL so why work so hard to hold up development when you can spend your time better by improving what's already there? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It is way too early to have this article. Can be easily created four years later.— Chris!  c t 03:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - See text of WP:Crystal quoted below. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - Because this is an issue that is likely to come up over and over again whether the article gets deleted or not, I suggest we put in a WP:RfC so as to make sure we have enough input that the consensus for or against deletion is very strong and clear. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly there has already been enough discussion of this in the media to create reasonable starting point, and there is only going to be more as time goes on.  Nothing wrong with with covering predictions and crystal baller-y when it's not editors but high-profile sources that are doing the predicting.--ragesoss (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - I think that WP:Crystal is being thrown around way too loosely here. The policy is intended to discourage editorial speculation, not to discourage the inclusion of notable speculation by reliable sources. Otherwise, would we even have articles like 2043, the 2150s, or the 31st century? Clearly, this topic is much more notable and relevant than many of the predictions made in those articles or the hundreds of others like them. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - we do have articles on 2043 and the 31st century, dear boy! :-) Tris2000 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I just said. Please read more carefully! What I was saying was "If WP:Crystal were meant to exclude all speculation, then why do we have articles about the distant future?" This entire discussion suffers from knee-jerk responses and failure to read carefully, IMHO. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Most likely (in fact, almost certainly) this will take place. In time, sufficient information will exist. But at the moment, this is too far off to motivate it's own article. Certainly a mention in the 2016 article and maybe even in the United States presidential election, 2012 article. Recreate the article when planning/media speculation starts in ernest. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Media speculation has started early for upcoming elections. See list of references below. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is too far away. Any speculation that possible sources mention is completely baseless because a lot can happen in the next 8 years. Like others said, we wouldn't have known Obama was going to stand candidate 8 years ago. To answer the nom's question: let's keep election articles limited to current elections and ones next in the cycle (in this case 2012). - Mgm|(talk) 13:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - References just added to Chicago Magazine, Vanity Fair, Time, National Journal. It takes a while to go through Google's five million returns for "2016 election" in order to find the best sources, but there is no doubt that there has been enough speculation by reputable sources to keep this article. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note It might help highlight the good sources if you also removed the ones that are not WP:RS. Remove the forum posts, and preferably blogs (unless they are by people who are seen as important commentators). Ryan Paddy (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I have no problem with illustrating a tendency in the blogosphere by providing links to the blogosphere. I realize, that other editors may disagree. They are welcome to whittle down the sources to the ones they believe are relevant. Regardless, the existence or nonexistence of extraneous material is not germane to whether the article should be deleted because there are enough clear WP:RS sources to provide backing for most of the article's content. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep People start planning early, and the refs added reflect it. Per WP:CRYSTAL, events that are almost certain to be held merit articles,and the example they give of something too far to be reasonable is the 2028 election. Thus, both this and the 2020 and 2024 elections would be reasonable topics. Speculation can be notable, even based on lack of firm data--we cant do the speculation, but if others do we can report it.  DGG (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - since there is sourced speculation I see no problem with this page being kept. However, as a BTW, it needs the attention of an interested editor to thin out the long list of references, some of which are very tangential, keeping just the ones that can source inline specific points. Smile a While (talk) 22:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I have to go on the side of "too early" on this one. All we can possibly have in this article is speculation which, even if sourced, isn't enough for a viable article. If someone actually comes out and announces their candidacy for 2016, then let's talk. Otherwise, it's too early. I have never in my life encountered so much ballpark speculation regarding elections far into the future before the new president even enters office. There is definitely an article to be had on that topic, but not here. In answer to the nominator's question, I say the article should not be recreated until reliable media begins reporting on announced candidacies, a major change to the electoral map is approved by government, or the 2012 election occurs, whichever comes first. Yes, we know the election is scheduled for 2016, but we could keep adding articles at 4-year increments in finitum. There has to be a line drawn. If the article is kept, kill the "humorous suggestions" section - that undermines the article and might serve as a magnet for further AFD challenges. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Metropoliton90. Eight years is way too far in advance to start planning for elections. Tavix (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - Tell that to the WP:RS's that are doing the speculation (See list of references below.) Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree with Metropolitan90. Sourced or not, speculation about possible candidates just isn't enough to sustain an article here given that the election is eight years and two cycles away, a lifetime in politics. Heck, even the electoral college map is an unofficial projection of how reapportionment will go after the next census. Unless someone actually officially declares their candidacy for 2016, wait until 2012. BryanG (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - If you read the rationale for deleting the 2012 election article back in 2006 (linked to by original AfD nominator) was that it contained only original speculation, and most editors agreed that well referenced speculation was perfectly acceptable. Unlike the 2012 article back then, the article we're discussing now contains well referenced speculation by major publications. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - The following sources should be plenty to demonstrate that the election of 2016 is already an important topic of conversation by well established political journals:
 * The National Journal (written by Chuck Todd)
 * Vanity Fair
 * Time Magazine
 * Chicago Magazine (includes relevant quotes from Emil Jones Jr. and Jonathan Alter, among others)
 * And this just what I can dig up in a few minutes on Google. A concerted effort is sure to turn up many more. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the Chicago Magazine article is not primarily about the 2016 election, but about whether Barack Obama should run in 2008 (the article was published in 2006). Furthermore, Alter suggests that among Obama's rivals if he waits until 2012 or 2016 will be "Sen. Harold Ford" (Ford did not win his election to the Senate in 2006), and Jones says that "the vice president" will run in 2016 (not identifying a person by name). This article was really just speculation about the 2008 election. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Pure speculation, nobody knows whats going to happen. South Bay (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment But it's notable speculation, and therefore should have an article. The principal of general notability is that if independent reliable sources are covering a subject in significant detail, it should have an article. By that standard, this future event may be less notable than highly-discussed future events such as peak oil, but it's still far more notable than most future events. The sources available indicate sufficient notability for an article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The people doing the speculating might be notable, but the point is that no matter how much of an expert they are, they can't predict the future. No one saw that Barack Obama would be running for president let alone win 8 years ago, so there is a signficant chance that all the speculation will prove completely wrong. Speculation should only be included if it is based on reasonable assumptions and since these elections are still 8 years awa, the results of the 2012 election cycle will prove crucial in what will happen in 2016. We don't write about the 2010 Oscars 2 years in advance, nor do we write about global warming conventions 10 years from now, regardless of who is doing the speculation in question. Both of these depend too much on intervening events and the same should apply to elections -- no more than one cycle into the future, since the outcome of the upcoming one has an effect on the events that come after that. Once the 2012 elections have occured we'll know who is in a position to stand candidate so reasonable guesses can be made. - Mgm|(talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're making a lot of assumptions about the accuracy of speculation. For all you know, perhaps some commentators did suggest Barack Obama (a long shot perhaps, but they certainly were speculating about Hillary Clinton and John McCain back then), and I think it would be very interesting to document the fact that John Kerry and Al Gore were considered as potential 2008 candidates back in 2000, but by the time the election rolled around, they were no longer considered likely. Our job as editors is not to make predictions about the accuracy of the speculation--as you are doing--but to document the speculation as it appears in print. If notable people are speculating, then the speculation is itself notable. Simple as that. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggestion - As an alternative to deleting this page, we could move it to Future United States presidential elections speculation or something similar. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I support that notion. Jason (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - (I am the nominator, but I haven't commented yet — even in my nomination, above.) I think this article should be kept, but all the speculation about who might run should be removed.  There is value in this article to the extent that it tells the reader the date, the electoral college vote distribution (based on 2010 census), that neither Obama nor Biden will run, and that if the Republicans win in 2012, then they are likely to be running for re-election in 2016.  Maybe a few more things.  However, the speculation about other candidates is too speculative to the extent that it's just not useful to an encyclopedia: so remove all the speculation.—Markles 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - As long as the speculators are notable, the speculations are also notable. Blocking the inclusion of notable speculations because an editor thinks they are far-fetched constitutes original research, and is itself a violation of WP:Crystal. Personally, I might think String Theory is too speculative to document, but Stephen Hawking probably disagrees...whose opinion do you think we should go with? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Note - Two more reputable sources added to back up statement that Biden is unlikely to run in 2016, which brings the grand total to six seven eight solid sources plus a dozen or so blogs. At what point are we going to start doing our jobs and reporting what the sources say? Is there a consensus on the number of necessary WP:RS's for an article to stick? Seven? Twenty? A hundred? Tell me what you think the limit should be and I'll dig up the sources since nobody else here seems to be willing to do any research at all. Am I the only one here who watches the news? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * New York Examiner
 * MSNBC
 * Washington Post
 * USA Today
 * The National Journal (written by Chuck Todd)
 * Vanity Fair
 * Time Magazine
 * Chicago Magazine (includes relevant quotes from Emil Jones Jr. and Jonathan Alter, among others)


 * Delete.I concur with numerous editors here who invoke WP:CRYSTAL as a deletion reason. Although I agree it is likely to occur, that's all we know about it. Any speculation here is sufficiently UNFounded enough as to be nothing but spitballing by people with a microphone somewhere near them. As Metropolitan90 mentioned nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Further, statements of who will NOT run are equally insubstiantial, as minds may change, and deaths may preclude accurate 'denials of intent to run or not run'. 2012 is more substantial; the RNC has already made some comments, the GOP PACs are picking names already, but none of them are seriously looking at 2016; they're unwilling to seriously consider an 8 year Obama yet. ThuranX (talk) 02:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - First, the issue is not whether the speculation is reasonable or correct, the issue is whether it's notable speculation. Second, how do you know there was no reasonable or correct speculation about the last election, considering Wikipedia did not (and in your opinion, should not) document them? After all, isn't it important to document where pundits got it wrong just as much as where they got it right? Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point relative to the 2008 election, there was no Wikipedia at all (the project launched January 15, 2001). If people want to document speculation, perhaps that can be done on another wiki such as the Future Wikia, and then they can copy the content here pursuant to the GFDL in November 2012. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - Because so many people seem to be using WP:Crystal incorrectly, I will provide quotes to the relevant portions. The policy does not ban all prediction, it simply spells out what types of prediction are appropriate. Specifically, there are three criteria that WP:Crystal uses to determine whether predictive articles are appropriate or not. I quote the summary lines below (emphasis mine), with parenthetical statements explaining why this article adheres to the relevant guidelines.
 * Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. (Check and check--it's notable & nearly certain, and it's well-documented.)
 * Individual items from a predetermined list or a systematic pattern of names, pre-assigned to future events or discoveries, are not suitable article topics, if only generic information is known about the item. (Check--it's not a generic item from a list, so it doesn't really matter, but just for good measure... many specific things are know, such as when it will be held and at least some people who will not be eligible.)
 * Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. (Check--contains links to work by credible sources.)
 * Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. Examples of appropriate topics include the 2010 U.S. Senate elections and -2016 Summer Olympics- (emphasis added). By comparison, the 2028 U.S. presidential election and 2048 Summer Olympics are not considered appropriate article topics because nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative. A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified." - WP:CRYSTAL WP:CRYSTAL may be wrong on this point. But statements claiming WP:CRYSTAL proves that 2016 is too far away definitely are. Anarchangel (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As Aelffin pointed out, too many are quoting WP:CRYSTAL seemingly without regard to its content :
 * True, but comparing the 2016 Olympics to the 2016 presidential election is like comparing apples and oranges. The thing about the 2016 Olympics article is that its contents are largely not speculative. We know what four cities are being considered to host because the IOC already picked them last summer. Olympic games are planned years in advance because they have to be - consider all the infrastructure the winning city will need to build. By contrast, the 2016 presidential election article is essentially all speculation other than "it will (presumably) occur," which (at least for me) isn't enough. BryanG (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to your opinion, but neither you nor anybody else here has explained exactly how their opinions are consistent with the actual content of WP:Crystal. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Sufficient unto the day -- but two full cycles is a very long time indeed. Using stare decisis would imply that if we did not allow a premature 2012 article until recently, the precise same arguments should hold for 2016.   We hardly ever get a better example of Ouija Board articles than this. Collect (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Both 2012 and 2016 are more anticipated than most elections because of the extraordinary attention paid to 2008. Thus, there is more notable speculation, thus there is good reason to document that speculation. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 22:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

KEEP --74.225.135.97 (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Arguments to keep are based on the existence of reliable sources, as required by WP:CRYSTAL. Arguments to delete are based on a subjective opinion that 2009 is to early to be speculating about the 2016 election, despite the fact that reliable sources are in fact speculating about the 2016 election. DHowell (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also the creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (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.