Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 5

Afd notice
The article Leroy Pletten - which falls in the scope of this project - is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Leroy Pletten until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election, YYYY templates and third-party candidates
Not that I want to bring up another "5%" type topic, but some of the United States presidential election, YYYY templates don't look right:


 * Template:United States presidential election, 1980 Click "Show", and you never see John Anderson's independent campaign in the general election, which had a significant effect in the race.  You have to click "Show" again, and search through all the usual no-hoper suspects before finding him.  That's not appropriate.
 * Template:United States presidential election, 1992 Exact same story with Ross Perot (even more buried visually), who had a huge effect on the election.
 * Template:United States presidential election, 1996 This time, Perot's not even listed, but of course the Workers World Party candidates are still faithfully reported.
 * Template:United States presidential election, 1968 George Wallace is buried in the second "Show", and he won five states.

In all of these cases, the person involved has their picture on top of the corresponding United States presidential election, YYYY article. It seems to me that if that is true, the person should appear in the template "above the fold", i.e. in the first "Show" not the second. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. It makes since to use the 5% rule for the template candidates per the reasoning above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Apply Wasted Time R's suggested "5% rule" to the election templates.--JayJasper (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I have one more suggestion: In these cases, change the "Third party and independent candidates" heading to "Other third party and independent candidates" (1968, 1996) or "Third party and other independent candidates" (1980, 1992) to indicate to readers that these are the 'rest of them' after the one they have just read.  Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also ✅. Very good suggestion.--JayJasper (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

US Collaboration reactivated & Portal:United States starting next
Casliber recently posted a suggestion on the talk page for WikiProject United States about getting the US Wikipedians Collaboration page going again in an effort to build up articles for GA through FA class. See U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM. After several days of work from him the page is up and ready for action. A few candidates have already been added for you to vote on or you can submit one using the directions provided. If you are looking for inspiration here is a link to the most commonly viewed articles currently under the scope of Wikiproject United States. There are tons of good articles in the various US related projects as well so feel free to submit any article relating to US topics (not just those under the scope of WPUS). This noticeboard is intended for ‘’’All’’’ editors working on US subjects, not just those under WPUS.

The next item I intend to start updating is Portal:United States if anyone is interested in helping. Again this is not specific to WPUS and any help would be greatly appreciated to maximize visibility of US topics. The foundation has already been established its just a matter of updating the content with some new images, biographies and articles. Please let leave a comment on the Portals talk page or let me know if you have any questions or ideas. --Kumioko (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Draft Ron Paul movement for deletion
The article Draft Ron Paul movement - which falls within the scope of this project - is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Draft Ron Paul movement until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Ole Savior for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ole Savior is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Ole Savior until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

United States presidential election in State, xxxx
In my opinion, articles such as United States presidential election in Louisiana, 1996 are unnecessary since they usually show nothing more than what is already on the main election page. These articles are usually created by new users looking to pad their "stats". For the most part, they consist of an infobox (which is nothing more than a reorganization of the same information in the article), a statement of the election date (which is already on the main election page), the state's electoral votes (which is already on the main election page), who won the state (which is already on the main election page) and a table of results for the state (which is the only new thing these articles add). Rather than creating fifty stubs per election, wouldn't it make more sense to create just one article with the results of every state?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:35, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, one article per election listing the results of each state is much more sensible than fifty stubs.--JayJasper (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for input regarding Donald Trump
There is a debate about the article's section heading. The link is here: "Statements regarding President Barack Obama" vs "Statements regarding 2012 Presidential election". Additional comments are much appreciated. Thanks. - Artoasis (talk) 14:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of John Davis (Colorado politician) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Davis (Colorado politician) - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/John Davis (Colorado politician) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Important deletion debate
Please review Articles for deletion/Jonathon Sharkey (3rd nomination). Is this eccentric candidate notable as an individual, or is the trend of eccentric candidacies what actually is notable here?--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Please comment
NASTY discussion going on at Talk:United States presidential election, 2012 over inclusion of minor candidates. It is getting very ugly, and needs mediation. Please help! SOXROX (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment - Santorum (neologism)
Request for Comment discussion started, please see Talk:Santorum_(neologism).
 * Santorum (neologism)
 * Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Hugh Cort for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hugh Cort - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Hugh Cort until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Donnie Kennedy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Donnie Kennedy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Donnie Kennedy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Vermin Supreme for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vermin Supreme is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It is my opinion that Vermin Supreme should not be recognized by the project. The administrator's action in closing debate as a "keep" was incorrect. It appears the process was hijacked by a cult.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The result of the afd should have been "no consensus" at the very least.--JayJasper (talk) 19:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the debate be reopened with antoher discussion? I wish I had known about this. Believe me, I oppose his article remaining. SOXROX (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note- I just switched his stub from american politician to american entertainer. Therefore, the ikiproject no longer recognizes this article. However, I'm still ging for deletion. SOXROX (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * We could write the article Satirical candidacy and then redirect it. At this point, I think that's the best course. Though we could just renominate it for deletion in a month or so.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dismantling of Controversies Sections
Dismantling 'Controversies' sections is very poor policy and does the readers a disservice. Controversies surrounding any candidate should be immediately available to readers without the necessity of any prior knowledge or enduring a total article read to find any controversies - if they are included at all - surreptitiously hidden within the mass of the article.

I can see why candidate's agents want controversies to be unobtrusively hidden in the depths of the articles, but that shouldn't be a concern of WPdia, the readership and their ease of access/information should be. 184.17.120.133 (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Merger with WikiProject US Presidents
In a discussion on the talk page for WikiProject US Presidents the topic came up of merging that project and this one into one Presidential related project. This is just a preliminary discussion to see if both sides agree but how does this project feel about this idea? --Kumioko (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. This project is about campaigns.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Despite being only semi-active, this project is relatively effective. This is largely because it has a focus and is not overly broad in scope. This focus is likely to get lost in the shuffle if merged with another project.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for this project to be supported by WikiProject United States
As an additional consideration it was also recently suggested that WikiProject United States presidential elections might be semiactive and might be beneficial to being included in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. --Kumioko (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I see no problem with that. It probably would be beneficial.--JayJasper (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since only one editor commented I haven't added this project to the list of those supported by WikiProject United States. Does anyone else have any comments about this project being supported by WikiProject United States? --Kumioko (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been over a month since the last comment so I wanted to followup. Does anyone have any comments about adding this project to the list of those supported by WikiProject United States. Only 3 members have commented and all three seem to be in support of it as long as that doesn't entail merging with WikiProject US Presidents. I would like to start the process of including this project but only if the members are in support. --Kumioko (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support this measure. SOXROX (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What exactly does it mean to be supported?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Question. First let me say that the United States presidential elections project page with members stay basically as they are with the members able to dictate how things happen, scope of the project etc. Its not going to be absorbed or dissolved in any way and the scope wont change unless the members want it too. The only change would be that the United States presidential elections Banner would be replaced with the WPUS banner with WikiProject United States presidential elections (and any other supported projects). All the projects use a standard group of parameters (Needs infobox, image, attention, etc) it also reduces the number of banners cluttering up the talk page of the articles. All the projects use the same article classes (If the project doesn't want to though thats ok too but the rest do).

How it will be supported can depend on what the members of the project want but typically WPUS is a bigger project with a lot more members, it has a newsletter, a monthly collaboration, multiple bots that run actively through the articles for various things (as can be seen on the members page) with more being setup as we go along. This means that it will be seen by a lot of people in a lot of ways. Up till now we have mostly been concentrating on building up the project but soon we are going to be starting to do some drives to build up articles, create new ones, etc. I hope this helps. --Kumioko (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I will put on the banner myself, depends on the activity. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions)  01:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite sure what you mean but let me clarify I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. If the project members don't want too thats finen with me. to be honest the articles are already in both projects anyway. --Kumioko (talk) 01:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I support the measure.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone (just wanted to clarify it wasn't me me) went and added this project to the list of project supported by WPUS and added it to the WikiProject United States template but I am not going to finish the process of adding it just yet until this discussion is finished. It seems like most of the comments so far support it but I want to make sure before I finish the process. At this point its easy to remove it from the list if needed. --Kumioko (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Prohibition Party nomination
Yesterday the Prohibition Party nominated Jack Fellure for president. Fellure was a non-notable figure before the election, should his nomination change that?-William S. Saturn (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that the Prohibition Party is notable, and that virtually all of the party's previous presidential nominees have articles, I would say he merits a page (even if it's only a stub).--JayJasper (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He would then also have to be added to the Republican Party candidates list because he initially ran as a Republican and filed with the FEC as such.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He could be added to the Republican list as a "withdrawn" candidate, I suppose, since he accepted the nomination of a different party.--JayJasper (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's been created and nominated at DYK.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jack Fellure for deletion
Jack Fellure was nominated for deletion. See here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Stevens
The article Thomas Stevens (politician) was redirected by without discussion last April with the edit summary: "subject is not notable except for his association the objectivist party". A few weeks ago on his talk page, I brought up the idea of recreation with new sources, but he outright rejected it. Today, a user requested that the individual be included on USPE, 2012, which would contest Mr. Napoleon's view on the issue. I would like to get a consensus on this matter. Does Mr. Steven's creation of the Objectivist Party and nomination by it for president render him notable under WP:POLITICIAN? Does the fact alone that Mr. Stevens received 720 votes and appeared on the ballot in two states in the general election make him a notable individual? Currently, Mr. Stevens is the only 2008 presidential candidate to appear on ballot in two states and not have a wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose While I could change my mind, at this point I don't see how the party itself is even notbale eno0ugh to warrant the founder having an article. However,I do agree that the no-discussion redirect was not the correct way to do it. SOXROX (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have added this to the above, but I first saw it at the Jack Fellure AFD. According to WP:OUTCOMES: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success."--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By that standard, he is clearly notable. I say yes, recreate the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:50, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose: So if I spend a few thousand dollars to register a party and run for president in one state, do I get my own Wikipedia article? This fellow has absolutely no notability beyond the barely notable Objectivist Party. Unless and until there is substantial coverage of him in reliable sources, I think the article should remain as a redirect. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Objectivist Party passes the notability threshold, if you disagree, please bring the issue to AFD. Regardless of whether it is notable or not, Mr. Stevens is notable alone for appearing on the presidential ballot of two states. Furthermore, information can be added to his bio that could not be added to the Objectivist Party page, such as his association with the Libertarian Party, his creation of other parties, his role in and break with the Boston Tea Party, and miscellaneous biographical information. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which is notable, save (barely) for his presidential run. I think this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you choose to ignore the WP:OUTCOME link? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean the bit where it says:
 * Unelected candidates for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into long lists of campaign hopefuls, such as New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such asUnited States Senate election in Nevada, 2010. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.
 * TallNapoleon (talk) 04:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No. What I linked above and quoted: "Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success." To refer to Mr. Stevens as simply a candidate is inaccurate since he is the nominee. He is also a leader of a national party.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * He was on the ballot in TWO states. If his party is a national party, it is so in name only. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the ballot access laws used to maintain the two party status quo, it's much more remarkable than you're giving it credit. Take a look at this long list of political parties. In 2008 only 13 of these (about 175) appeared on the ballot in two states or more (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitution, Green, Peace and Freedom, Prohibition, Social Workers, Boston Tea, America's Independent, Socialism and Liberation, Socialist and Objectivist). Out of these, only the Objectivist Party nominee does not have a wikipedia article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * While the party may be - as TallNapoleon describes it -"barely notable", it meets the notability threshold nevertheless. Stevens, therefore is notable (if only "barely") for being the party's first presidential nominee as well as its prinicipal founding member. Note the last plank in the WP:OUTCOMES link: "Politicians who (a) represent a historic first, such as..... for acting as a spokesperson on a major political issue......are also often found to be sufficiently notable."--JayJasper (talk) 16:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per William and JayJasper. Difluoroethene (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Webster FAR
nominated Daniel Webster for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 00:54, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of List of close United States presidential elections for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of close United States presidential elections - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of close United States presidential elections until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Jack Fellure
--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Caroline Killeen for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Caroline Killeen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Caroline Killeen (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme nominated again for deletion
Deletion discussion going on at Articles for deletion/Vermin Supreme (2nd nomination). I understand that many members of this project (including me) were upset by the decision to keep, so here it is. SOXROX (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for putting this back up for discussion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Kenneth Bryan Grammer for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kenneth Bryan Grammer - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Kenneth Bryan Grammer until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 04:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Good article review of Tim Pawlenty
I have done a good article review of Governor Tim Pawlenty and am informing wikiprojects associated with the article so that improvements can be made to the article. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerry Levy
Deletion discussion going on about Jerry Levy at Articles for deletion/Jerry Levy (2nd nomination) please feel free to contribute. SOXROX (talk) 03:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews
I'm looking for help covering the 2012 presidential election at Wikinews. I've been editing there frequently for the past few months but anticipate that my editing will decrease in the next few months. Please give it some consideration. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at 2012 Republican primaries article - inclusion in candidates gallery
Hi folks, there's a discussion at Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 about establishing a criteria for which candidates to include (perhaps more accurately, exclude) in the candidates gallery. The discussion is here; your input is welcome. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Bot run to auto assess some of the Unassessed articles
There is a discussion here for a Bot to do an assessment run through the 3500+ Unassessed articles that currently fall under WikiProject United States and the projects supported by it. If you do not want the bot to autoassess the articles for your project or if you have any comments or concerns please let us know. --Kumioko (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dal LaMagna for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dal LaMagna - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Dal LaMagna until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link
Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JayJasper (talk)

Nomination of Darcy G. Richardson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Darcy G. Richardson - which falls within this project's scope - is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Darcy G. Richardson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--JayJasper (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Eugene Puryear for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Eugene Puryear is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Eugene Puryear until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination as a United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month candidate
One or more articles relating to this project have been nominated to be a future United States Wikipedians' Collaboration of the Month. All editors interested in improving these articles or voting for next months collaboration are encouraged to participate here. --Kumioko (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
--Kumioko (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)