Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:56, 24 January 2016

United States presidential election, 2024

United States presidential election, 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the consensuses found at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination), only the next election for a position will have substantial or meaningful information that is not speculation that may violate WP:CRYSTAL. The material currently in the article is generic information about a United States presidential election (to which future election pages had previously been redirected and protected) and general trends about future demographics of the country rather than concrete details about the election in 2024. Reywas92 03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• keep - the article clearly explains its notability. "Future trends of demographics" are discussed in the context of election, hence relevant. "WP:CRYSTALBALL" applies to wikipedians, not to politologists. Therefore your statement "only the next election for a position will have substantial or meaningful information" shows that the previous consensus missed something. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - notable future event that has been covered significantly in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

None of the article's sources discuss the 2024 election at all, rather a couple mention the demographics by the year 2024. "Significantly" and "cover" are inaccurate. Reywas92 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• keep - for the same reasons as William Saturn and Staszek Lem state. Ratemonth (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per Reywas92. The current sources provide only general demographic data that includes election year 2024, but no significant coverage or specific details regarding the 2024 election per se. A case of WP:TOOSOON.--4scoreN7 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete: WP:TOOSOON. Per nomination rationale and comments of 4scoreN7, no significant coverage of the 2024 election per se.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - this is not a placeholder election page that would otherwise merit deletion but a notable future event that has been covered significantly in reliable sources. The precedents cited by the nom ("only the next election will be covered") were recently overturned in a SNOW consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020. CRYSTALBALL does not apply, as per that discussion, as the sources are engaging in speculation, not Misplaced Pages editors. CRYSTALBALL does not preclude us from covering speculation, only engaging in it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

As pointed out previously in this discussion, the sources do not significantly cover the election itself. Rather, they only provide demographic info that merely alludes to the 2024 election year. If you can find reliable sources that discuss the actual 2024 election in detail, please add them to the article. Otherwise, the article presently fails WP:GNG and should be deleted.--4scoreN7 (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This assertion is completely and patently false. The sources directly refer to the 2024 election by name and date. Your continued schilling of this falsehood leads one to believe you haven't actually read any of the sources you're opining on, or are lying about their content in an attempt to obfuscate the AfD to achieve a desired result. LavaBaron (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the sources, thank you. And there is no lying or "shilling" going on here. I stand by the assertion. Mere references, direct or otherwise, to the election do not constitute significant coverage. Of the article's half dozen references, this one has the most extensive coverage of the 2024 election, and it consists of demographics, not detailed discussion of the election itself. I reiterate that the subject presently lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.--4scoreN7 (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You, very clearly, have not read the sources if this is the conclusion you're doubling-down on. LavaBaron (talk) 05:37, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read the sources, and no, none of them discuss the election. Refer to it, yes, but substantive information about it, no.

• Comment Most of this article is a speculative psephological and demographical analysis of a change that will happen in 2024, and in my view the page is presently being used as a WP:COATRACK for that analysis. That elector redistribution should have its own article if that is deemed a notable subject (after all, the effects of that redistribution will affect subsequent elections as well). I think that this demographical content is plumping what is otherwise a very bare-bones article. Nevertheless, if it were stripped back to that bare-bones article, I'd be on the fence about whether it was too soon or not. Aspirex (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The elector redistribution will only effect the 2024 and 2028 elections, at which point a new redistribution will occur. To, therefore, split all that off into a standalone article would really be a very silly thing to do. LavaBaron (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why would that be silly? If it affects two elections, why would it be any more appropriate to push all of the content into the page of just one of those two? Aspirex (talk) 06:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Because the redistribution of electors has occurred 21 times in history and we don't have any standalone articles about any of those 21 occasions, the relevant material instead being incorporated into the appropriate articles for the related elections, where it exists. To create a standalone article for this one reallotment would prompt an immediate - and most certainly successful - merge proposal back into this article. Your proposal, as a bureaucratic exercise, would simply occupy a few hours of everyone's time before circuitously ending-up back at the status quo. It is, really, a very, very silly proposal. Let's not discuss it any further. LavaBaron (talk) 13:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

2010 United States Census and 2000 United States Census discuss the electoral redistribution, there's no reason we couldn't start 2020 United States Census, along with info about preparations being made for it. You're being very rude to call User:Aspirex's good suggestion silly. Reywas92 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So, you want us to create a brand-new article called 2020 United States Census to which we'd move the content from this article, allowing this article to then be deleted. This is really a renaming proposal then, and not an AfD. Honestly, there are so many caveats and corollaries to your proposal it's become almost indecipherable. So, for that reason, it's objectively silly. Making a fact-based observation is never rude. LavaBaron (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep WP:CRYSTALBALL, event has been discussed in many sources.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:28, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Mind providing which sources are discussing the event? I see sources that discuss demographics in the year 2024, but none that discuss the election. Reywas92 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, no prob. Source 1 is named "2016 Might Look Safe to Democrats. But 2024?" and then describes probabilities and possibilities of the 2024 election. Source 2 is referenced to a section titled "the 2024 Election and Beyond." Source 5 begins a section on the 2024 election by noting "This would result in minor changes to the Electoral College in 2024 ..." before delving into a detailed analysis of the 2024 election; I could go on listing every single source, but essentially I'd just be copy-pasting the entire article into this ridiculous AfD. LavaBaron (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MB298 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment We pray Reywas92 realizes now that this was an ill-conceived AfD proposal and, recognizing it will soon be SNOW closed as Keep, chooses to withdraw it. LavaBaron (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Give me an effing break. You 'pray' for this? Four keeps with actual comments and three deletes does not make a snowball close. Multiple previous consensuses does not make this ill-conceived. This can run its course and an admin can close it as usual. Reywas92 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We've got six Keeps. When it reaches SNOW proportions, editors - understandably - don't want to spend time pounding away the same common sense case that's already been made. Anyway, it's unfortunate you've decided to be obstinate and obstruct progress in building the encyclopedia. LavaBaron (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete - my goodness folks. What's the big hurry, anyways? The 2016 election is over 9 months away & already we've an article on the 2024 election? Even the existance of the 2020 election article, is too soon. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So, delete because WP:WHATSTHEBIGHURRY? You deserve a barnstar for sheer novelty of argument. LavaBaron (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This article's creation (in Jan 2015) was/is too early. Atleast wait until after the 2016 election is held, if not the 2020. This article should be moved to your (LavaBaron's) sandbox, where you can make any changes to it, when necessary. Then re-create it, but only after the 2021 inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I keep looking for our policies WP:ATLEASTWAIT and WP:WHATSTHEBIGHURRY? but just can't seem to find them. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. C'est la vie. LavaBaron (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. But, I still recommend this article be deleted. PS: We shall have to agree to disagree. :) GoodDay (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your canvassed recommendation is based on an actual policy, or on WP:IDONTLIKEIT? If a policy, which one? LavaBaron (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed. I was invited to this Afd. Since you've asked about policies? I believe WP:TOOSOON & WP:CRYSTAL would fit this situation. Anyways, I'm still supporting delete. GoodDay (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

• Canvassing Alert Closing admin, please note that Reywas92 has - within the last hour - started aggressively WP:CANVASSING delete !votes by selectively notifying editors who !voted delete in previous U.S. election AfDs. For example: , , etc. Some of these have already started to appear to register Delete !votes in this thread. I recommend the AfD be immediately closed to protect the encyclopedia and avoid a Keep !voter beginning retaliatory canvassing. I'll separately file a report at ANI. LavaBaron (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The message I got, was worded neutrally. I see no breach of WP:CANVASS. GoodDay (talk)

Canvassing includes any "attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion." LavaBaron (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Who's to say, I wouldn't have chosen to 'keep' this article. Anyways, I'll let others weigh in on your ANI report. PS: I appreciate that you've put alot of effort & sweat into this article. This is the reason why I suggested you move it to your sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Our WP:VOTESTACKING policy is to say. That's who. LavaBaron (talk) 00:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in the hands of the Wiki-community (via ANI) now. GoodDay (talk) 00:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete – On further consideration, I am formally going to vote for deletion. This is on the grounds of a) the article being used as a coatrack for a generic demographical discussion and having little other verifiable content and b) for consistency with the WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL precedent consensuses cited by the nominator. I do not believe that the case of the 2020 Election page cited by LavaBaron as a precedent-breaker is applicable in this AfD, as the former took place five years in advance of its election and the latter is taking place 8¾ years in advance of its election, almost a full cycle earlier. Aspirex (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as way too soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete We don't know who will be running or even how the electoral votes will be allotted. pbp 00:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a policy-based argument. WP:DONTKNOWWHOSERUNNING is not a policy guideline. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is, as is "I got nothin'". --Calton | Talk 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete Far too soon. As mentioned above by User:Purplebackpack89, we don't know who will be running, nor how the electoral votes will be allocated as well. SQL 00:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Not a policy-based argument. WP:DONTKNOWWHOSERUNNING is not a policy guideline. LavaBaron (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would caution you not to mock people's arguments. SQL 00:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Heaven forbid, we actually use COMMON SENSE in our AfD voting...Also, it was heavily implied that the relevant policy here was WP:CRYSTAL. BTW, LavaBaron, thanks for telling me about this AfD thread with your ANI notice! Your AfD thread will probably garner 8-10 more delete votes than if you'd just sat on your hands. pbp 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This is not a common sense based argument. RS have covered the 2024 election. This is not a placeholder article like 2028 election would be. Also, please dial it back a little, this is a AfD discussion, not a playground. LavaBaron (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You have a lot of nerve telling somebody to "dial it back" after you've attempted to bludgeon every single voter who's disagreed with you. Also, nobody is contesting the notability of the topic. What we are saying is that the article, and frankly the sources that are in the article, are something Misplaced Pages is not, namely groundless speculation about the future. pbp 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Interesting perspective, Purplebackpack89! Thanks so much for your input - I hope you have a great evening! LavaBaron (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. 100% based on speculation. Guy (Help!) 00:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument. As noted by the pre-canvassing editors, we can report on RS speculating, the proscription on speculation is against editors themselves. LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument Yes it is. --Calton | Talk 02:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your link takes me to a sentence that reads "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I'm "almost certain" the 2024 U.S. presidential election will take place. Of course, it is true anything could happen between now and then, a coup, asteroid hit, whatever. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Thanks again for your input! LavaBaron (talk) 07:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your Wikilawyering and your ability to read only what you want to read is truly impressive. "... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented" is the very next sentence, and your desperate attempts to pretend anything has been documented notwithstanding, you've failed here.

And you missed the sentences after that:

By comparison, the 2032 U.S. presidential election and 2040 Summer Olympics or events surrounding the 250th anniversary of the United States of America in 2026 are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research.

So, do you need new reading glasses? I can recommend some places. --Calton | Talk 07:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Even with sources, the article is purely speculation. No one can know what will happen in the next eight years. The article can always be recreated in 2020 or so. clpo13_(talk) 00:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:100%BASEDONSPECULATION not a policy based argument. As noted by the pre-canvassing editors, we can report on RS speculating, the proscription on speculation is against editors themselves. LavaBaron (talk) 00:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:IAR is a policy. Are you going to harass everyone who !votes delete? clpo13_(talk) 00:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you feel a discussion is "harassment" maybe WP isn't right for you? LavaBaron (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't actually know the difference between harassment and discussion, maybe Misplaced Pages isn't right for you. You need to get a grip. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It sounds like we disagree on this content question, Calton. But I still respect your opinion and appreciate you taking the time to weigh-in here. Thank you for your contributions! LavaBaron (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Delete There is no deadline, WP is a work in progress, WP is not a newspaper. Speculation 8 years ahead of the event is plain daft. (And before you respond to this, LavaBaron, go read Misplaced Pages:Don't bludgeon the process) Keri (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. There is not much substantive that can be said about this election at this time, nor is it likely that anything substantive will be available to be said for a quite a while. For comparison, United States presidential election, 2012 was deleted seven times, and the article was only accepted in November 2008 when the election was only four years ahead. This election is more than eight years away. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete Mostly per Aspirex. Also, after looking at the sources I do not believe that there is enough in depth discussion of this topic to make it pass WP:GNG at this point in time. --Majora (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Not just speculation, really empty speculation. You might just as well have an article on the weather in London during the 10th week of 2021. --Calton | Talk 02:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If there were peer-reviewed articles and RS sources discussing the weather in London during the 10th week of 2021 then, yes, we could have such an article. But did you even read this article? Your comments seem to indicate, like your predecssors, you didn't. LavaBaron (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

This editor's inability to AGF with every editor here to protect something they wrote is not attractive. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I apologize without reservation if you feel I have not extended GF. Thanks for bringing your concerns to my attention. LavaBaron (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment to closing Admin LavaBaron started an ANi thread, which brought extra attention here, then suggested that all votes beyond a certain point be discarded. That thread should be considered with the close here. Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac is correct - I agree my suggestion for omitting votes that occurred after the canvassing/stacking was proved should be considered with the close. I understand there's an alternate suggestion that only the three !votes that are a provable result of stacking be omitted from consideration and I'm certainly fine with that, too. With compromise, we all win! LavaBaron (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - My inclination after reading the thread on AN/I was to !vote "delete", but after reading the article, I think there is sufficient valuable information there to justify keeping it, primarily because of the potential adjustment of Electoral Votes following the 2020 census. Had it not been for this factor, I would have followed through and !voted "delkte", but given that factor, I believe it should be kept. Under normal circumstances, however, only the immediately following election should have a placeholder article. BMK (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Society topics)
• AfD debates
• Relisted AfD debates