Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination)

Until when?
The closure summary stated:
 * Of course, the deletion holds true only through 2012. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a summary of consensus. None of the arguments advanced in the delete recommendations suggested that an article on this topic could not merit inclusion prior to that date. Bongo matic  11:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well that is not binding. Should there be, in fact, early facts about the election, then it could be recreated sooner, though I do not forsee any solid information until after 2012. Reywas92 Talk  13:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The result should have been no consensus "Keep (no consensus)". A third of the comments supported keeping the article, and their arguments were policy-based. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course their arguments were policy-based. That's the point in AFDs. Both sides' arguments were based on policy. It one side's wasn't, they would probably lose the dispute. 204.186.77.141 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree, but if that were the case then the call should have been no consensus "Keep (no consensus)". *Shrug* Whatever. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus does not exist. The article is either kept or deleted, and a majority of the opinions were for deletion. Reywas92 Talk  20:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * All that is necessary is some more news stories, and the article can be rewritten substantially focusing on the most recent ones, and thus not be speediable as a re-creation. But it is usually strategic to wait until there are some very good ones, and more than one or two. What is needed is a feature article, not a mention, in a major national source, discussing not one person's candidacy,but the prospects in general, or at least a comparison of several possibilities. I would very strongly recommend against doing a deletion review now, peculiar though the decision is. If it does not succeed, which is what I expect,it will make the subsequent article harder to introduce. DGG (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ray, what on Earth do you mean "no consensus" doesn't exist? That was the result of the last attempt at deleting this article, and there was a 30/60 split this time. That's not consensus. Anyway, it doesn't matter. This article has already proven a massive waste of effort and I'd prefer to be done with it. Although if you'd like to debate the larger issues of waste and efficiency or Wiki-destruction vs. Wiki-creation, I'd be happy to discuss on my talk page. Over and out. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 06:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Aelffin, actually Reywas92 is correct. Please see Guide to deletion, which states:
 * An AFD decision is either to "keep" or "delete" the article. AFD discussions which fail to reach rough consensus default to "keep".
 * So the many "No consensus" closures we've seen should probably be labeled "Keep (no consensus)". There it is, in living color&mdash;who knew? Bongo  matic  15:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah. Apologies for passing along the slight misnomer. My comments have been changed to reflect the correction. Nathan McKnight -- Aelffin (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my intention with the above-mentioned statement was that the decision that there should not be an article on this subject will not be valid after 2012, not that it will definitely be valid until then. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)