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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. There are many differing opinions here, but the main reason that this article is retained is this specific phrasing in WP:CRYSTAL: "... are not appropriate article topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research." As there is verifiable, non-OR content in the article regarding the subject, there is no pre-established consensus that an administrator would normally be able to rely upon to put more weight towards one side of this debate or the other. Therefore, there is no way for a clear consensus to be determined from this debate. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Further note due to requests for more information: There were policy based reasons argued here for both keeping and deleting the article; and in their most quintessential manner those arguments manifested as a differentiation of one's personal understanding of WP:CRYSTAL. And, neither side was able to produce an unquestionable delineation of that policy, yet there were over 28 days of continuous discussion allowed between the two sides. This, to any reasonable man, would appear to identify two things: 1. that there is a much bigger issue at hand, and 2. in light of this, an unambiguous comprehension of the community's consensus cannot possibly be ascertained justly by this isolated, unannounced - at least to the scale necessary in this case - inquiry, (as is noted in our deletion policy: "Outcomes should reflect the rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and community consensus on a wider scale. (While consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)")... but instead must be found by a larger examination of the matter by the whole community via a discussion (recommended action would be a RFC) of WP:CRYSTAL. After such a discussion is held, and a clear determination is made as to what is precisely seen as "too far into the future" to be retained on the encyclopedia, an administrator would potentially be able to place more weight to one side of this debate over the other. Until then, it would be a "supervote" for an administrator to make a dichotomized judgement on this AFD. - Now I'm sure this decision (or, more accurately, non-decision) does not make everyone happy, as it's not a solution to everyone's concerns. But, I feel that it would be completely unjust, and rash, of me to instead act in a supposititious manner on what is currently quite a contentious topic. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (2nd nomination), and Wikipedia: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^Talk 03:12, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Keep - notable future event that has been covered significantly in reliable sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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^Talk 20:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep - for the same reasons as William Saturn and Staszek Lem state. Ratemonth (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020. CRYSTALBALL does not apply, as per that discussion, as the sources are engaging in speculation, not Wikipedia editors. CRYSTALBALL does not preclude us from covering speculation, only engaging in it. LavaBaron (talk) 04:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have read the sources, and no, none of them discuss the election. Refer to it, yes, but substantive information about it, no. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRYSTALBALL. MB298 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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^Talk 23:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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: [1], [2], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• Delete as way too soon. Legacypac (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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

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

• 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^{Query me!} 00:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would caution you not to mock people's arguments. SQL^{Query me!} 00:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia is not, namely groundless speculation about the future. pbp 04:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Calton, no I didn't miss it. There is nothing in the article that is OR and everything is RS. Also, I'd appreciate it so much if you didn't attack my physical abilities. While you're correct that my eyesight is, unfortunately, something I've had to deal with since my injury and is a battle I'm losing it does make me feel bad to have people tease me about the struggle I'm on. Thank you! LavaBaron (talk) 08:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

So no, you don't understand the difference between discussion and [[WP:BLUDGEON}harassment]], nor the difference between content issues and behavior issues, then. Got it. --Calton | Talk 08:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process) Keri (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And your comments indicate an inability to recognize actual reliable sources, and an almost solipsistic worldview when it comes to discussion. You've been corrected -- multiple times -- about your empty and bad-faith claims that everyone but you fails to understand things, but yet you persist in this behavior. Why is that? --Calton | Talk 08:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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. [3] Legacypac (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]
• Delete - If I understand correctly, speculation and analyses of trends in state populations and the political inclinations of those populations are giving some news figures a bit of material to talk about the 2024 election on the basis of electoral college gains or losses. As far as I can see, other than throwaway speculation about who might run, the only good sources are about those figures. Why could this not be covered in one of the articles about the electoral college, congressional appointments, or the census? Changes brought by the census, by the way, are not unique to 2024. This 2012 Washington Post article is titled "Think 2012 was bad for Republicans? Just wait until 2032". 2032! I'd be willing to bet we can find some for 2044 (and beyond), too. (The 2032 election is, by the way, is one of the examples given of an inappropriate article at WP:CRYSTALBALL). I wouldn't be opposed to a merge but find it unlikely that it'll make sense to keep this as a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too many assumptions about the future. Not needed, even as a "place holder". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Beyond My Ken. There is traction and notability. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL. I find it odd that people are citing the same policy as a reason to keep. I suggest anyone unfamiliar with the policy read it. The longer, relevant name of the policy is actually, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball." (emphasis added) - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:43, 24 January 2016 (UTC) P.S. - I was not canvassed, nor have I seen the discussion at AN/I. I was unaware of any canvassing till I saw it mentioned while reading the discussion here. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they are pointing to the section of CRYSTAL which says "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Keri (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and userfy if requested, per WP:CRYSTAL: If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented, which is not in this case. It's damn too soon. Cavarrone 20:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Move (incubate) to Draft:Early attention given to the 2024 United States presidential election, Delete, and salt until 6 November 2024.  This is not an article currently suitable for mainspace.  Confounded here are the topic that will be in mainspace in December 2024, and the suggested move target.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should we also delete and salt United States presidential election, 2016 until November 9, 2016? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ask yourself, if United States presidential election, 2016 had been salted in 2008, what topics would be getting development today?  The article as written today cannot survive into December of this year.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and why write things for the purpose of re-writing them?  Do the work, identify the real topics being covered today (a November presidential election from the viewpoint of January 2016), and then frame it in terms that will still serve the encyclopedia readers of 2030.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has had major improvements in the removal of future tense since my !vote to incubate.  I support Move to Early attention given to the 2024 United States presidential election and leave the redirect.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as too soon for an article. The page seems to consist of only the fact that it will occur after the next census and speculation about how the census will affect electors; other than this speculation few if any RS seem to be discussing this vote that is not even for the next president, but for the one after that. 331dot (talk) 00:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete far too soon when we don't even know who will be running and there isn't (yet) much coverage on the 2024 election itself Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I deleted one section containing ideal speculation by a political commentator on potential candidates for an election 9 years from now. Must have been a slow news day when that guy drug out his crystal ball. Obama was a newly elected first term State Senator 8 years out. Ronald Reagan was busy running California 8 years out. Bush I was representing the US in China 8 years before becoming VP. Ford was in the House. It would have been crazy to write about any of these men as potential POTUS 8 years out on Wikipedia. It is not encyclopedic to speculate like this. Legacypac (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They won't even be talking about 2020 until 2016 is decided, never mind 2024. For all we know, the electoral college could have been revamped by then. And even for 2016, did anyone a year ago predict that Trump would be the front-runner, or that Sanders would be approaching neck-and-neck with Hillary? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the 2016 page existed a year ago, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Creating the 2024 page in 2023 would make sense. Creating it now, does not. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve months advance creation is an atypically high standard. The 2016 page was created in 2012. [4]. LavaBaron (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I was setting a date to create this article, that date would be January 1, 2021. pbp 14:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're willing to base that decision on an arbitrary date rather than when reliable sources become available (now)? --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets GNG, adequate RS BlueSalix (talk) 19:29, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - the topic meets GNG, but more importantly, most of the delete votes above are misquoting WP:Crystal. The reality of US politics today, is that these election plans occur up to a decade in advance, and there are very real people talking about very real things here. Jeremy112233 ^{(Lettuce-jibber-jabber?)} 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who, 10 years ago, predicted Trump would be the front runner this year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep already significant analysis of the election, so it's notable. (For full disclosure, I was asked to comment here) --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There can't possibly be any "analysis" of an election that's 8 years away. Guesswork by people paid to do guesswork is still just guesswork. You could make a prediction yourself and it would be just as valid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if I got that prediction published in a reliable source, it would contribute to GNG. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes. 8 years from now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • No. Now. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Neither you nor anyone else knows what's going to happen in 2024. If you can find a "reliable" source from 2008 that accurately predicts what's to happen in 2016, then you'd be onto something. Otherwise, no. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you trying to suggest that it would be inaccurate to claim "So-and-so said such-and-such would happen in 2024"? --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • What would be the point? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a horoscope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 21:48, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Knowledge, not speculation. We should not include predictions by the Grand Warlock or Colbert either. [5] Legacypac (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. For those who haven't bothered to read the policy, it states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It's clear that a US presidential election is of sufficient wide interest. It's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election. The article is clearly acceptable and in allignement with wikipedia policy on covering future events. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing verifiable about the 2024 election with the possible exception of the date on which it will occur. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd also contest that it is even of "wide interest" right now...people are concerned about the general topic, and specifically the 2016 election, but they aren't actively thinking about 2024. pbp 22:55, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where is the "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals" when no one has clue one what the issues or platforms are? Legacypac (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to United States Census. The info that is notable is the effect of changing censuses and we have a suitable article for that. 2020 United States Census does not exist yet, but would be also a viable article to move this to, as it will take place in only 4 years, and could have some speculation on future elections. L.tak (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Way too soon for a standalone article on the 2024 election. As noted by several other participants in this discussion, the article in its present form consists entirely of speculation rather than substantial coverage or discussion of the election itself. As Baseball Bugs pointed out, the only thing verifiable about the election at this point is the date on which is to be held. That said, would not object to merging the content as suggested by L.tak.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As the contents of the article make evident, it's clearly too soon for a standalone article; a collection of contradictory speculation does not meet WP:CRYSTAL. Past precedent with the 2012 and 2016 articles being deleted twice as premature (last time in 2008 and 2009 respectively) is also indicative that this article is premature. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Speculation" is not a synonym for "analysis." There seems to be some confusion on this point. If it is, we should also go ahead and delete List of supernova candidates and hundreds of other articles. LavaBaron (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Has anyone else looked at the edit history? 

• United States presidential election, 2024 when it was Arthur C. "Art" Bartner
• United States presidential election, 2024 when it was President's Guest House

Unscintillating (talk) 01:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, those were my fault. I was editing in my sandbox and mainspace at the same time in different tabs. The second article ended up in mainspace as President's Guest House (P.S. I'm soliciting GAN-reviews for that if anyone's interested), I didn't move forward with the first one. Good reminder, though, I should finish that up. Gracias! LavaBaron (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.  These other articles in the edit history should be revdeleted ASAP.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I am sure it was unintended and it surely is harmless. Revdel is for serious problems.... L.tak (talk) 20:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These old revisions are not edit history for this article.  One problem is that it makes it harder to identify the real edit history, and this won't get better with time.  Your comment has led me to realize that there is an admin involved whom I can ping.  @CambridgeBayWeather: I believe that this is non-controversial, but if not, where should the question be reviewed?  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that was every edit from creation to 30 October 2015. I deleted them all and restored only the election material. LavaBaron do you require the deleted history of you sandbox? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 23:49, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about Enough With 44 edits representing 1/3 of the page edits here [6] the article creator has bludgeoned the other editors enough now and a Topic Ban would be appropriate if they post here one more time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.41.231 (talk) 05:54, 2016 January 26 (UTC)

You're right Anonymous Editor - apologies. My last comment I thought was important to answer the confusing edit question Unscintillating inquired about as I was the only person here who could reasonably be expected to answer that question. But I'll self-impose a TBAN on this AfD from this post forward for all but questions directed to me by username specifically. LavaBaron (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. Since LavaBaron requires arguments beginning with WP:, I'll say WP:TOOSOON, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NORUSH, WP:COMMONSENSE, and, most importantly, WP:DOSPAGWYA. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge with 2020 United States Census as an alternative to delete (my vote if this great merge idea is not accepted), this allows the material to be preserved while avoiding an article about an event 8 years out. This should make everyone voting happier as a compromise. While 2020 US Census is also a future event, it is the next one in the series. Legacypac (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Beyond My Ken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have pages for French presidential election, 2017, Pakistani Senate election, 2018, United States presidential election, 2020, European Parliament election, 2019 (United Kingdom), United States Senate elections, 2020, and the Next Turkish general election, which have not even been given a specific year. If we have articles on future elections, we should have an article for this. Maybe there should be a set policy on how far in advance we look. I don't see why there is no stub for the 2030 presidential election. Curro2 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of the articles you mention are about the next election for those respective offices. The United States Senate elections, 2020 are three elections away, but senators serve six-year terms, so at least the incumbents for those offices are already known (unless they die or resign). But the article under discussion is about the third-to-next presidential election. We don't even know who will be the incumbent president going into the 2020 election, much less the 2024 election. (Also, we will never have an article about the U.S. presidential election in 2030, because that's not a presidential election year.) If people want to write articles about future elections, I'm sure they can find upcoming elections even in 2016 that haven't been written about yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note on United States Senate elections, 2020. The Senate is broken up into three classes. The 2020 election is the next election for those in class 2. 2016 is next for class 3, and 2018 is next for class 1. --Majora (talk) 06:01, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does Wikipedia have a specific policy on this - only the next election gets a page? The Turkish election does not even have a set date. It's at some point in the next four years after which the article will have to be completely rewritten. Curro2 (talk) 07:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • The next Turkish general election, is still the next Turkish general election, so it's alright. See 43rd Canadian federal election, for example. GoodDay (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, primarily per nom and Aspirex's comment. This isn't even a particularly close call. There is tons of precedent that these types of "articles" are basically proscribed. Additionally, every single "per WP:CRYSTALBALL keep should be discarded as frivolous, since that page explicitly states that such articles as this one shouldn't exist. This is little more than a coatrack for various theories and viewpoints. As someone mentioned above there might be a small amount of content that could be assimilated into the 2020 Census article, but that's it. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 20:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There is very little anyone can specifically say about the 2024 election at this point. One can mention long-term political and demographic trends, but those aren't really specific to the 2024 election (they are an ongoing reality/process which affects many other things too), so discussion of them really belongs somewhere else, somewhere broader than this. SJK (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to 2020 United States Census per Ahecht. Most of the information in the article is about predicted demographic changes in the United States rather than the specific presidential election, so it would be more properly covered in the census article. I oppose a straight deletion since there is information cited to some pretty reliable sources, and think that the proper outcome would preserve the information out of article space. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is not too soon. The results of the 2016 election will have predictable consequence 8 years later as well as 4 years later, and discussion of the possibilities in reliable sources starts very early. DGG ( talk ) 00:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now at best as this seems convincing to keep separately instead of deleting or merging elsewhere. SwisterTwister talk 01:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For a speculative article, this is already getting some decent coverage by sources. I see no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:CRYSTAL. Far too soon. Fiddle Faddle 13:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As a matter of common sense, there is virtually nothing meaningful that may be said about a U.S. presidential election three presidential cycles into the future (2016, 2020, 2024), five national election cycles into the future (2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, 2014), and one U.S. census and national reapportionment of the Electoral College into the future. Barring a nuclear war, the zombie apocalypse, or the second coming, the election will be held on Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2024. That's it. As for details, you would have more luck predicting the weather on February 5, 2024 based on historic weather patterns. Nothing is known about the likely candidates, the state of war and peace, the economy, etc. This article serves no valid encyclopedic purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the well-stated rationale of Dirtlawyer1 above. Not enough meaningful information/data about this election yet to justify having an article on it this early.--Cojovo (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there is already some analysis of the election, enough to forge a sufficiently unspeculative article, as long as WP:NPOV is followed. As soon as we present speculation as speculation, and it would not be harmful to present the speculation (a good indicator of this is speculation by otherwise acknowledged people), I see no harm in speculation. This also allows readers to gain knowledge of the circumstances and viewpoints behind the 2024 US presidential election, and supports other content such as the 2020 census; it belongs on Wikipedia and an encyclopedia. WP:CRYSTAL exists to bar harmful or superstitious speculation; however, the number of reputable political experts speculating means that it does not apply. Esquivalience ^t 02:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I read WP:CRYSTAL as specifically proscribing this very article. In its text, it mentions the 2020 election as notable, and later elections as not. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 02:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment in Response to Coffees Specific Request: I read WP:CRYSTAL as specifically permitting articles of this very type. First - Criterion #1 reminds us that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The 2024 U.S. presidential election could be canceled, but the circumstances under which that would occur is a situation of a catastrophic exigency (this is 2024 we're talking about, not 3016). U.S. presidential elections are inherently notable as they are the method for selection of the control official for the world's largest nuclear arsenal, which is clearly significant. Ergo, the two provisions of criterion 1 (notability and certainty) are met. Second - CRYSTAL reminds us that 2024 Summer Olympics is a permitted article. The 2024 Olympics article does not even have a location or date scheduled, in contrast to 2024 U.S. Presidential election which has both a location and date. If 2024 Summer Olympics is absolutely permitted by CRYSTAL, how can 2024 U.S. presidential election not be? LavaBaron (talk) 05:37, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You're basically just completely ignoring the plain text of CRYSTAL that makes future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away explicitly prohibited. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 05:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see no text in WP:CRYSTAL that says anything remotely resembling that. If you can quote it I'll change my !vote right now to Delete. If you can't, you post "LavaBaron is the Greatest" on your userpage for one week. Coffee will judge the winner. Deal? LavaBaron (talk) 05:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2024 Summer Olympics. 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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hallward's Ghost (talk • contribs)

Uhhh ... that doesn't say anything about "future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away [are] explicitly prohibited." LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh stop. It specifically cites the presidential election 4 years from now as an appropriate topic, and lists a presidential election beyond that as a topic that is not appropriate. That you just completely left that out of your supposed response to Coffee's request is quite telling. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 08:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"and lists a presidential election beyond that as a topic that is not appropriate" - Yes, it lists the 2032 presidential election as a topic that is not appropriate. In this AfD we're discussing the 2024 election. Not trying to harass or embarrass you, but your claim was that "plain text of CRYSTAL that makes future U.S. presidential elections other than the one 4 years away explicitly prohibited" (2032-2016 = 16 years | 2032-2016 ≠ 4 years) Best - LavaBaron (talk) 09:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that it only excludes those topics if nothing can be said about them that is verifiable and not original research. This does not apply. Attacking the 2024 election with policy that deems the 2032 election as inappropriate is attacking a straw man. Nowhere does it "explicitly" state that the 2024 or even the 2028 are suddenly inappropriate. Questionable logic. Esquivalience ^t 14:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "questionable logic" at all, when CRYSTAL specifically cites the election 4 years from now as an appropriate topic. It seems fairly clear that's where the "line" is drawn unless extraordinary specific information exists about a presidential election cycle to make it notable for some reason--outside of the fact that it is likely to happen, of course. There is nothing particularly notable about 2024 versus 2028, 2032, etc., that would allow it to jump over the bar CRYSTAL sets. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 15:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Um, there is already coverage about the 2024 election, meaning that the main issue here is not notability. It does not say that only the 2020 election is appropriate. In fact, it only states that they are examples, far from the "specifically" premise that the argument stands on, because a policy should not advocate unclear community consensus. Esquivalience ^t 15:28, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Esquivalience is correct. An example of something that is permitted, is not an "explicit prohibition" [sic] on the existence of any article other than the example. If it were, Wikipedia would consist of about 12 articles instead of 5 million. LavaBaron (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This article has nothing of any real specificity regarding 2024. And as CRYSTAL clearly delineates that the election 4 years hence is appropriate, and cites examples beyond that as specifically being not appropriate, the burden is on those who wish to keep this article as it is to explain why an exception should be made to the plain language of CRYSTAL. Hallward's Ghost ^{(Kevin) (My talkpage)} 19:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how Wikipedia works. The burden of proof is on editors who propose the destruction of knowledge, not those who propose its preservation. LavaBaron (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about recentism and WP:Deletion policy  WP:CRYSTAL states, "...the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."  This doesn't mean unverifiable speculation regarding the coverage expected in December 2024.  The applicable event notability guideline is WP:NEVENTS.  WP:NEVENTS says, "Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance."  I believe that there is consensus here that this topic as it is being handled today will not be in this article in December 2024.  Recentism is shown.  But WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  Merging to US Census doesn't directly address the questions of how will we cover this topic before December 2024, and how will the material in the current article be covered in 2030.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:58, 6 February 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.