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 Keep. That something didn't happen doesn't mean it isn't notable, and this is clearly a well-documented topic. I appreciate the arguments to merge, but I can't see any obvious target which wouldn't be overwhelmed to undue weight levels by having all this material added..  ‑ Iridescent 19:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney (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)

Probably passes WP:GNG, but seems to be political WP:FANCRUFT and fail the WP:10YT as it was ultimately discussion of planning that was never implemented and had no lasting effect on anything. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All of the content in this article is already mentioned in Mitt Romney's presidential campaign article so this article is unnecessary. JayJay^{What did I do?} 23:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The content of this previously DYK-featured article is more detailed and expansive than Mitt Romney's presidential campaign article. We should not seek to actively destroy knowledge. A previous merger proposal failed due to opposition by MB298 and others. (And, BTW, I can assure you I am not a "fan" of Mitt Romney. The Readiness Project's transition case study, however, has been repeatedly mentioned in the popular press as a source of study by 2016 transition planners at NAPA and elsewhere. There is a growing body of inbound links to this article, as a result.) LavaBaron (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, Lava, no one is destroying knowledge!! The inbound links can direct to the campaign article. Reywas92^Talk 17:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the main campaign article does not contain the level of detail as this standalone article. Once it is deleted, as you support, the detailed information will be eviscerated from WP. In general, we should not make an effort to destroy knowledge. LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Post-campaign matters covers this pretty well, there is no reason whatsoever that this needs to be duplicated or a separate article. "Others" would be just yourself, Lavabaron. Planned presidential transition of Donald Trump should be merged while we're at it. Reywas92^Talk 07:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not precisely accurate since there is a tacit approval in the fact that a number of experienced editors have expanded or edited the article, and others have linked to it over the course of the months since it was written. I take it that these are the "others" referred to by Lavabaron.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I considered nominating that article as well, but as there is a non-trivial chance Trump wins the election, that article would become valuable (as the Obama cognate is now). If Trump loses tho, to the trashbin it goes imo. Gaijin42 (talk) 12:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. As User:LavaBaron writes, the page is larger than the section at the Romney campaign page. Moreover, presidential transitions are a topic of significant and growing notability. The topic passes WP:GNG. But it also passes notability, imo, because it is documentably a subject that people want to know about, as evidenced by this news google search on "leavitt transition of Mitt Romney " [1]. This page needs expansion, not deletion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This notification from the page creator comes perilously close to canvassing E.M.Gregory AusLondonder (talk) 15:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I had written [2] to User:LavaBaron to say that I had found the page just as I was about to start such a page, so it is akin to notifying a page creator. Also, User:AusLondonder (an old and persistent wikihound, er... follower of mine) ought to courtesy notify the user about whom he is making accusations.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You seem confused. The article for deletion is the Romney article, not the Trump article. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, as per WP:APPNOTE it is not canvassing. E.M.Gregory had edited on the Trump transition article and several editors in this thread began discussing possibly merging that one as well. As per WP:APPNOTE I left every single editor who had ever made a content (non-CE) related edit to the Trump article a neutral note to inform them it was being discussed here. The notes did not exhort them to !vote in a certain way and they were left for every editor on that article, not ones I'd hand-picked because I knew they'd be sympathetic. Please better familiarize yourself with what WP:CAN is and is not before making these types of pot-stirring accusations. LavaBaron (talk) 16:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Under that logic you could have the articles "Mitt Romney presidential campaign fundraising", "MR PC media issues", "MR PC tax returns", "MR PC travel", etc, all of which theoretically pass GNG and are things people want to know about. If this article is a little longer than that section, there is no reason it cannot be merged. Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One !vote per editor please. If you're trying to change your !vote from "delete" to "merge" please do so by striking the bold "delete" in your original comment and replacing it with "merge". This will help the closing admin keep track of things. LavaBaron (talk) 19:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Already broadly covered elsewhere. I see no need for this sort of "what if?" fork. AusLondonder (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge per WP:PRESERVE. Baking Soda (talk) 15:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 16:08, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the Pre-Election Presidential Transition Act of 2010 was passed in 2010. It provided funding plus access and briefings to the candidates of the major parties, starting the day the party convention ends. The reason for its passage was "was inspired by a report released in January that gave credit to George W. Bush and his aides for a timely and well-organized transition to Barack Obama's administration. The report said modern-day national security and economic concerns should trump political concerns about planning for a presidency at the height of campaign season. "Everyone agrees that in this post-September 11 security environment, presidential transitions should not be left to chance," said Sen. Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), a lead sponsor of the bill. Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio) agreed. "Candidates taking deliberate steps to ensure a smooth transition should not be criticized as arrogantly 'measuring the White House drapes' before Election Day," he said. "Such planning should be encouraged and supported."[3] In Other Words, since 2010, as UserLavaBaron states above, the nature and urgency of Presidential transitions has shifted much as it did after the advent of horseless carriages and radio. Much as the 20th ammendment moved Inaguration Day, the Transition Act changed the timetable of Presidential transitions. We now have federally recognized transition teams in place and ready to get to work 6 months before the inauguration. One is made up of elephants, the other of donkeys, but both are quasi-governmental outfits, complete with security clearances. You or I or whoever may not like Romney, or take Trump seriously (in fact, I rather suspect that the doubts many of us harbor about Trump's fitness for the job are part of what is driving the current wave of media coverage of the Romney transition team) but my point is that while transition teams have long been significant, post 2010 they where bumped up into the status of quasi-official governments-in-waiting. Coverage on Wikipedia merely recognizes that reality.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should have an article on that Act or on presidential transitions in general that can also cover specific campaign activities. We're not saying this is meaningless information altogether, just that this is redundant to the main article (where it would be WP:PRESERVED, as a note to admin regarding the prior comment) and need not be duplicated in a separate one.Reywas92^Talk 17:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We're all friends here and this is pretty informal. You can just say "I'm not saying" instead of the imperial "we're not saying". LavaBaron (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note, Solid, in-depth sources that ought to be used to expand this article include: [4], [5], and [6]. In addition, the article needs to be expanded to include considerations of the impact of the Romney transition planning effort on the Trump transition team in article such as this: [7].E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An article about what would have happened if Mitt Romney had won an election that in reality he lost is not encyclopedic content — we're an encyclopedia of real things, not a directory of alternate history. Bearcat (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously didn't read the article. Not a single sentence in it talks talks about what "would have happened if Mitt Romeny won the election". The article is about a project that spent $8.9 million and employed several hundred people during the year 2012. That's what this history article is about, a real event that actually took place from May to November of 2012. LavaBaron (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This is an article about the planning of an administration, and is well sourced, and even more sources have been found by E.M.Gregory. Some editors appear to be scared of cruft, which this is not; rather, our readers will likely search for this article as the major election revs up. It will also make a terrible precedent. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Reywas92, AusLondonder, and Bearcat. The information is sufficiently covered elsewhere, no need for a standalone article on a hypothetical event.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a "hypothetical event" - planning for a transition was a real event that spent $8.9 million and employed several hundred people during the year 2012. That's what this history article is about, a real event that actually occurred. LavaBaron (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Reywas92.--Catlemur (talk) 20:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An odd case of WP:CRYSTAL. The gist of this article is "this planning for a situation happened, and here's the details, but because something else happened instead, nothing planned here ever happened." We're suffering from recentism here as well, insofar as there are sources, but in the end, nothing happened, nor was it a freak occurrence; it's rather a standard part of the election process. MSJapan (talk) 02:53, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, MSJapan, the planning did happen. In fact, $8.9 million was spent on the act of planning. An actual act. We have all sorts of WP articles on planning as an act in an of itself, even when those plans are never implemented. See, for instance Defence Scheme No. 1, Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics, etc. LavaBaron (talk) 04:45, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An exceedingly odd argument by MSJapan. We of course have entire categories populated by significant things that were planned but never happened The Boston Museum, Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom, but this is an article about a planning process that happened, and that is deemed to have a major influence going forward, not only in being the standard to which this year's planning processes are being held, but as the namesake of the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015. I urge editors new to this topic to give the page a read before iVoting, because there are serious misimpressions conveyed in this discussion.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@E.M.Gregory: You think this "planned transition" is on the same historical notability level as Napoleon's planned invasion of the United Kingdom? AusLondonder (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said or implied that, nor is it the point. I did think I was being amusing when I compared it to one of the more notable planned invasions in world history (NOJOKESONWIKIPEDIA - I forget that sometimes) What I said that we have many articles about planning projects. Not only military invasions, but articles on Olympic bids, planned museums, colleges, canals, coups d'etat, and more. The argument that because the transition never too place, the topic is not notable is simply not valid.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:23, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely on the same historical level as Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics and The Boston Museum. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, to elaborate on my original vote a bit, no it is not. As far as I am concerned, this is a process that occurs as the result of the aforementioned act passed in 2010. Therefore, it's a normal process that will happen in every election, one the side of the non-incumbent party. However, despite all the planning, etc., in the grand scheme of history, nothing happened. Therefore, it is worthy of mention (perhaps) in another article, but not to the extent that it should have its own article. WP:RECENTISM allows for sources, but in the end, nothing happened in the historical neutral sense, and it isn't going to make a difference to any other planning scheme in any other election. It's an isolated non-event with no effect. Also, the purpose of AfD is not to have keep voters fighting with delete voters; the outcome of voting is based on arguments weighed by third parties, not volume of argument. MSJapan (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the article has an "Impact" section precisely because the Romney impact has had an impact. That is why the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 is named for the leader of the Romney Readiness Project. There's more, and more to be added, but the point here id precisely THAT IT DID HAVE AN IMPACT.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LavaBaron - I would strongly dispute that it is on the same level as Chicago bid for the 2016 Summer Olympics. That has much greater in-depth coverage. The Boston Museum article is of borderline notability itself, quite frankly. And the circumstances are entirely different to this. It wasn't an event or planned event. AusLondonder (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, you're wrong. LavaBaron (talk) 06:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, The Boston Museum is an excellent example of why planning processes are historically important and WP notable. The Museum was a proposal to fill a space on the Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy Greenway which was part of the Big Dig. It was a major proposal, major people as backers, major historians and museum designers, no fewer than 2 marquee architects at different stages, plenty of coverage in RS. More to the point, it was part of a major reshaping of the downtown of a major American city, a story that cannot be told without discussing the reasons why such a museum was proposed, and what was chosen instead. We keep these articles because they are notable, functional, and the type of encyclopedic topics that users go to Wikipedia expecting to to find.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while it has been asserted that this even lacks independent notability, lengthy discussions by political scientist and political journalists (see this book search: [ https://www.google.com/#q=romney+presidential+transition+2012&tbm=bks] show that it does.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to Closing Admin - Please observe that several "Delete" !votes have advanced the same argument that has continuously been rebutted by multiple editors without sur-rebuttal or explanation by the deletionists in question. As per our definitions of consensus, "drive-by voting" is not conventionally used to determine the outcome of an AfD; please consider "drive-bys" within the context of superior argumentation advanced by "Keep" !voters. LavaBaron (talk) 16:44, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather obscene assertion, that you have an inherently superior perspective. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Most delete arguments in this discussion concede that this article passes WP:GNG (it looks like there is plenty of coverage in reliable sources). Instead, it appears that the debate is focused on whether this information should be incorporated into the article about Mitt Romney's failed presidential campaign, or whether it should be it's own article. First of all, those kinds of merge discussions are usually hammered out on an article's talk page. Second, WP:PAGEDECIDE specifically cautions against articles becoming "too unwieldy." The article for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 is already very long and merging the entirety of this article would make it far more unwieldy and lengthy. I think a much better option would be to include a very brief summary of the contents of this article at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 and then direct readers here with ((see also)) or ((main article)). For those reasons, I think we should keep this as-is. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LavaBaron and E.M.Gregory: Everyone (including you two) is entitled to their opinion and !vote. You have had your say. Kindly stop with the WP:BLUDGEON its becoming WP:DISRUPTive. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Excuse me? It would be useful if you would come up with a valid, policy-based argument. Your assertion of WP:FANCRUFT is frankly insulting to page creator, article was written at a time when the 2012 was being discussed in major media out of serious concern that the Trump transition planning was lagging dangerously (as in dangerous to the nation, given the near-disaster of the inadequacy of the 2008 transition planning) behind. Your second argument, WP:10YT is inaccurate, given the fact that this transition is already discussed in a serious way not only at book length, but in political science & government management journals and in numerous books. I am frankly insulted by your assertion of BLUDGEON when both the article creator and I have been working to bring sources to both this page and to the page itself and to make valid policy-based arguments.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing administrators are no doubt already aware that across AFD many iVotes are hastily cast on the assumption that all politics-related articles are, as Nom put it, WP:FANCRUFT, and some (not necessarily on this page) reflexively cast "against" keeping articles that seem to support whatever party or position the editor dislikes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have voted GOP in every election since I was 18, and voted for Romney. Probably not voting for Trump though. That you think anyone who disagrees with the value in this article is partisan says more about you than the article. This content can easily be merged into the Romney election article. There is no reason for it here. The concept of presidential transitions is certainly very notable. But that doesn't mean each transition plan is notable. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, an editor above stated that if this is deleted he will personally delete the Trump transition article if Trump loses in November. It is not only the partisan tone of that remark that rankles, it is that this article will be taken as a precedent. And I firmly believe that Presidential transition planning is a serious and encyclopedic topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 You have made three comments in this thread. I have made five. That two comment difference is not indicative of WP:BLUDGEON or disruption. What is disruptive, however, is:

• ... when you slap up an off-topic comment in which you make wild (yet, as just shown, easily dismissed) personal attacks in an attempt to salvage a failing AfD by impugning the GF of others with an opinion different than your own.
• ... when you make no attempt to properly indent your comment so that it, consequently, sits in the middle of the page and makes it difficult for others to register their opinions in proper thread order. I'm sorry this AfD doesn't seem to be going your way but you must at least try to work with the community in a collaborative spirit instead of throwing a fit. Given your colorful block history, one would have thought this was a lesson you'd already learned.
• ... when you recite your voting history in USA elections. If you want to show-off your civic mindedness you can set-off fireworks, wave a flag, or belt-out the Stars and Stripes Forever from the comfort of your home; we don't do that on WP. You should be evaluating articles on merit, not on your personal political proclivities. (Frankly, the fact you "voted for Romney" [sic] probably calls into question your overall soundness of judgment.)

All the best -LavaBaron (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect. Does it pass the GNG? Sure, it would appear so. However, so do hundreds of events in all political campaigns; this topic would be much more suited to inclusion as a section of Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 rather than a standalone article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:48, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you address the WP:PAGEDECIDE - i.e., length, and WP:UNDUE - issues that entails?E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There are no such issues. The article in question is basically four paragraphs and a lede. The merge target is sufficiently long and comprehensive. With only minor trimming it could easily fit comfortably in its new home without giving undue weight or skewing the page length. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. I've read through the arguments here, and I remain unconvinced that this would meet WP:UNDUE. When I originally looked through the arguments, I was worried that it would be too much, but to be honest, I feel the most important portions of this article already exist in the main article's readiness project section. I think this article can just be redirected back to the main article and it would be fine. Nomader (talk) 20:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've got no dog in this fight, I can see both how it is crystal-bally esoterica and also documentation of a little-known aspect of the 2012 campaign. I suggest that if this is kept it be retitled Readiness Project, which might lead to clearer focus. Carrite (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect The useful information in this article already exists at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012. Whether it meets GNG or not is secondary, we have a lot of things that meet GNG but don't have their own articles because they are better suited for article sections. Pinguinn 🐧 19:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as best connected to that, unlikely anything future better for this. SwisterTwister talk 21:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this was something that the government felt was important enough to invest a good deal of time and money into so it appears to me to meet the GNG with the RSes that cover it. With regard to the merge per WP:NOPAGE it would make the Romney article unwieldy to put this in that and put a bit much weight on his presidential campaign compared with his governorship and other work. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:42, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E One clarification, I don't think anyone is proposing to merge this into the Romney article, but rather into the Mitt_Romney_presidential_campaign,_2012 article Gaijin42 (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 you have had your say. Kindly stop with the WP:BLUDGEON by replying to every single comment. Anyway, WP:NOPAGE also applies to the Romney campaign article which is, in addition to the bio, very unwieldy. LavaBaron (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants to see an example of utter bludgeoning (by LavaBaron) go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination) or indeed just look at all the comments above. What a brass neck. AusLondonder (talk) 04:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, possibly merge, to the campaign. It's part of that topic, and insufficently substantial for a WP:SS subarticle.  Sandstein  18:13, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Sandstein, I truly do not see this topic as part of the campaign. I see it as an initiative related to, but not "part of" the campaign, somewhat like a "campaign" book (see: Profiles in Courage ) Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State. We don't roll those articles into the respective campaign articles, even tho Clinton sought and was given that job, and Kennedy wrote that book, as part of a run for the Presidency. We give then stand alone articles because they have reality independent of the campaign. My argument is that a post-2010 Planned Presidential transition team has reality independent of the campaign. Independent (government provided) funding, GSO provided office space, a staff. Also, however, a very specific mission (a smooth transition of the government to new officials who are prepared to handle financial, military or other emergencies on day one) that is separate form the goals of the campaign. These transitions matter, and merit stand alone article here, just as they merit the scholarly, policy wonk, and journalistic attention this one has garnered independently of the assessments of the campaign. (Romney's Transition team is highly regarded and held up as a model; his campaign, not so much.) Thank you, Citizen E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Had he won the election, this would be part of the coverage of his presidency. As it is, it existed only as part of, and in the political and social context of, his campaign, in my view.  Sandstein  17:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Everyone should be fine with keeping content about this subject on the project. Whether its better for readers to have a separate article, it seems unlikely, but I just don't care that much.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This new headline: Mike Leavitt advising Donald Trump’s transition team. He's not endorsing Trump, but he thinks the transition process is important so he's working it. I'll add to article shortly. Note that while this is not precisely the same as a former Governor logging to an AFD to iVote Keep on the grounds that this topic/article is independently notable, it sort of is. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Continuing to expand this article, as sources continue to be published that make the "unique" nature and significance of the Romney transition process clear.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge: This short article is covered in the article(s) covering Romney's campaign, so I see little reason to assume it can find two legs to stand on. Furthermore, I don't see there being much more noteworthy information that could be scrounged up to discuss this hypothetical situation that hasn't been seen as a possibility in about four years now. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:17, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note DarthBotto initially iVoted delete, replaced delete with merge following my rename response below.

Note I did not notice the response below; I realized that the text of my input aligned more with a merge vote, rather than a delete vote. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• rename Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney, 2012 or 2012 Planned Romney presidential transition to avoid misleading editors like the previous comment who appear to think that this was a "hypothetical situation" or an event that did not occur. And, even more ignorantly, to assume that there is not possibility that a significant planning process may generate "noteworthy information" as it is used to improve future planning processes. This one, for example, has already generated the Edward "Ted" Kaufman and Michael Leavitt Presidential Transitions Improvements Act of 2015 .E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate !vote struck. One per customer please. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that this would be interpreted as a second iVote, just a suggestion to rename for clarity after keeping.

• I am arguing here that it is simply more efficient to keep this now, since this topic will inevitable be the focus of journalistic and scholarly scrutiny in the months ahead.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding article now with analysis from a recent authoritative article, of which I fearlessly predict that there will be a spate whether we transition to Johnson, Sanders, Trump or Clinton this winter. Whoever wins, transition planning teams past, including this one, cannot halp but come up for re-analysis. E.M.Gregory (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article subject is noteworthy, especially since the 2010 law regarding transition plans and teams. ALPolitico (talk) 02:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per "Wikipedia is not news about something that didn't happen in the end." Some of this material would be useful in a general article about presidential transitions, but as it is what we have is basically political fancruft. Mangoe (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'll weigh in now, what the hell... While one could make a "crystal ball" argument against this piece, it seems that sourcing is adequate for a GNG pass and that a great deal of information is apt to be lost in any potential merge. As I mention above, I think that a name change for the piece to Readiness Project would solve much of the theoretical difficulty. Carrite (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sourcing is enough to pass WP:GNG and it covers more than any of the merge/redirect targets and shouldn't be merged back into already long articles. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 18:29, 1 June 2016 (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.