Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Presidential Election

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. The crystal ball is sensing that the article is a few years premature, and is pure speculation at best. seicer | talk | contribs 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Presidential Election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Nothing but crystal balling. - Icewedge (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(expansion of rationale) While it seems such articles have been traditionally created a very long time before the election (United States presidential election, 2008 was created back in 2004) we should wait until after this current election as the results will drastically affect nearly everything about the next election. - Icewedge (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt until after Jan. 20, 2009. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as obvious crystal balling.  -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 03:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and salt this scheduled future event until after Jan. 20, 2009. No reason for this to exist until at least then. Cliff smith ^talk 03:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proper title for this is United States presidential election, 2012, which is already protected. Cliff smith ^talk 04:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article is redirected back to the United States presidential election page, which is funny since other future election articles aren't even treated with an AfD as long as they are immediate and approximated closely to the current date. --Toussaint (talk) 04:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spirit of WP:HAMMER applies to the WP:CRYSTAL. Maybe someone should extend it to cover situations like this. Brilliantine (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect and/or Disambiguate: Turn it into a disambiguation page for other articles about 2012 presidential elections, given that the title itself doesn't specifically indicate a country. --Toussaint (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:CRYSTALing for a start. Not to mention the opinion piece nature of saying something and than sourcing it to an opinion piece. There is nothing from reliable 3rd party sources that actually verifies that Clinton will be the front runner, etc. This one needs to be deleted and the title used when appropriate (in a couple years time) as a dab page. The United States presidential election, 2012 article doesn't need to exist until after the 2010 Congressional Elections at the earliest. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article is based on speculation from the Huffington Post about Palin being the Republican frontrunner in 2012 Crystal ball prognostication is an inadequate bases for an article. But it would a mistake to protect against creating this article until 2010 as suggested above, since there will be teams hard at work grooming candidates and raising money and support as soon as the votes are counted this November, and by January 2009 there will be opinion polls rating various possible nominees and announcements by those interested in running. I propose deleting for now but if there are multiple sources with substantial coverage I see no problem allowing article creation after the November election this year, since it is the next election for that office. Does Jasynnash2 think there were inadequate sources for an article about the 2008 presidential election until November 2006? Check again. Going back to the history of United States presidential election, 2008, it is clear that on this date in 2004 the article [1] was speculative and everything hinged on who won in 2004. By February 2005 there were references showing that some of them had announced their intentions to run, along with opinion polls ranking the public preference for various candidates. A post-election article about the next election is completely timely and appropriate. Edison (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this crystal ball-ery. RockManQ (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Way too speculative and WP:CRYSTAL ball-like. This shouldn't be started until after the election at the earliest, and probably closer to 2010 when presumably the losing party will begin the process to choose a new candidate (assuming the winning party expects their candidate to try for a second term). 23skidoo (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.