Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

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 redirect to United States presidential election, 2012. MBisanz ^talk 05:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012

Fail wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Virtually no content, worthless article _David ^WS _(contribs) 19:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect to United States presidential election, 2012. These primary elections have not been scheduled yet and may well wind up being uncontested. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Metropolitan90. Can be filled at the appropriate time. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Redirect' per above. Way too premature, plus as noted there may not even be a need for such a competition; we don't know. WP:CRYSTAL applies and if any Democrat emerges to challenge Obama's re-election then they can be covered in the main election article until such a time a primary actually begins. As it stands, the article in question has nothing to offer. 23skidoo (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Obama is unopposed in 2012, there will still be primaries. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Be that as it may, it's still too early to make such supposition that Obama and Biden will be involved, or any of the other people whose names have been added since the AFD began. The key is: remove all supposition from the article, and leave behind only verified, sourced fact, and if there's anything left, then the article might be viable. As it stands, all that's left is the title and one line saying there will be primaries in 2012. That's not enough for a viable article at this stage. 23skidoo (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as usual in American politics, people start writing about the next election at least as soon as the first one is over. Even though it would be uncontested short of a personal or political catastrophe, people speculate about those things also. As for CRYSTAL,"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" -- what would it take for it not to happen? Collision with a comet, an invasion from UFOs, a Fascist revolution. Not much else. DGG (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL also says that even certain-to-happen future events need verifiable information to say about them. Until somebody makes a concrete action, this is 100% speculation. • Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — All this tells us is that Barack Obama would be the incumbent in 2012. Unless there is something out there suggesting any activity working towards the 2012 Presidential election on the Democratic side, this is nothing but crystalballery. MuZemike (talk) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Metropolitan90. Pure crystal ball gazing. • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, a check on some WP articles shows that essentially every presidential primary season even when there have been extremely popular incumbents have been contested. . It seems perfectly acceptable to set up the framework, and add information as it comes. I do not see what harm it is to an encyclopedia to say there will be content, and here's where it will be. DGG (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until 2011. At the moment, this doesn't look like it will be a very notable or contentious race. And a lot of unsourced speculation - Joe Lieberman? Might as well put John McCain as a possible candidate too. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While i not sure whether Barack Obama will still be a president or not, we will keep just like Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004, or rename the page into Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2012. Timothyhouse1 (talk) 11:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbency and the significance of the race are secondary issues. We have historical facts for 2004. We have speculation for 2012, and Wikipedia policies about speculation are clear. • Gene93k (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs work (a lot of work), but there is no point in deleting it. After some time and some edits, it will most certainly contain more information. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 17:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the "first kid on the block" syndrome at work, where someone with nothing to say reserves a place in line for an article. This is particularly obnoxious when it comes to gazing into the crystal ball, with an editor confidentally proclaiming things like "If Obama is for some reason unable to run in 2012 the probable nominee will be Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton". Tell me who's going to win the Super Bowl in February, and by how much. I'm not a palm reader, but something tells me that the life line on this one is pretty short. Mandsford (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It's certainly a valid topic for an article, and in a few years we'll need to have this article, so no need to delete. However, aside from the obvious statement about Obama, everything is speculation, so the title should be redirected to the presidential election article. Nyttend (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once we get any sources in it, this is a definite Keep per WP:CRYSTAL. Speculation is not prohibited by it, only unsourced, original research speculation. WP:CRYSTAL gives the 2010 U.S. Senate elections as an example of what is appropriate. The next US presidential primaries are very, very similar to the next US senatorial election. As long as there are RS's speculating, we can write a verified article on it. The article needs sources, quick googling suggests there are some out there, e.g. plans for when a state's primaries will be. Some are outdated by Obama's election though (speculating on Clinton's or Obama's 2012 strategy if a Republican won in 2008). Of course the "first kid on the block" should have included one source, and annoyance is understandable.John Z (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a "once we get sources" keep rationale is that sources aren't available yet. Until we get sources this is 100% crystal ball gazing, and this article is only getting worse. This article should not exist yet, and keeping it in anticipation of reliable sources emerging turns WP:CRYSTAL on its head. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that the article would certainly be re-created when there is information about such things as the scheduled dates for a primary election. However, as the authors of Super Tuesday and New Hampshire primary have recognized, we don't even have information about when those events will take place. Frankly, we need to slap down this type of "me first" approach to writing, as well as the "I'm an expert" conceit that goes with it. This is an online encyclopedia, and nothingburger articles don't add to Wikipedia's reputation. When an article about the 2012 primary is written, and it will be, we'll expect the same encyclopedic content style as other political articles on Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I meant by "once we get sources into the article." I meant that there are sources out there now - I saw something on the West Virginia primary date, etc, that could be added to the article now. No time to do it at the moment.John Z (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lets try not to be stupid. There is nothing encyclopedic about speculation, which is the only thing that would be possible concerning an election that is two presidents down the road. (lets not forget that the one that has been elected isn't even in office yet.) Trusilver 17:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree entirely with Trusilver: there is no possibility of nonspeculative content in such an article. Mangoe (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless somebody finds something veriable to say about the subject. The article currently says, essentially, nothing, and history revisions that have said something have all been unsourced speculation. JulesH (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment one of the page's authors has responded to the deletion debate on the article's talk page. JulesH (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is speculation, unless multiple reliable sources are found commenting on something notable. As is, and since 2009 does not even exist yet, this is non-notable speculation. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tried editing it to a useful standard, but it's impossible. I created the 2012 Republican primary page because there is a shitload of media interest which works for article frame-work for the future. The Republican and Democratic article are incomparable because there is a lot of information on the Republican Convention Bids and Primary schedules as well as potential candidates. If we wanted to keep the Democratic primary page, it would have to focus more on COnvention hosts and biding process rather than candidates. The problem? Convention bidding doesn't even start until November, 2009, and doesn't get serious until early to mid 2010. There is nothing this article could be used for except to reserve it for the future. Bigvinu (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.