Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/U.S. presidential election, 2012
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a forum for political punditry. Of the material in this article, only the date seems verifiable, and that seems adequately covered elsewhere. Gdr 18:20, 2004 Aug 28 (UTC)
- Delete: It's the future. It does not exist yet. Geogre 18:46, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC) "I Have Veto'd"
- The 2008 presidential election article seems to be rather professional and acceptable, and it is in the future as well. The writer of the 2012 article has not listed himself as a potential candidate so the article doesn't qualify as vanity. It's not very informative but may be a useful shell. I say keep. Thehappysmith 19:42, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Speculation and generalities that, with a few details changed (names, which party is currently in, which party is currently out) apply to any presidential election two terms away. Delete please. - RedWordSmith 19:48, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- The 2008 article is good and useful, but trying to write about 2012 takes the speculation too far. Delete. Everyking 19:51, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Concur- The 2008 article is sueful, but there's nothing useful here, just speculation and restatements of the obvious. Delete. -FZ 13:07, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 19:54, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. This article seems to be all about perhaps, assuming and maybe. No place in the wiki i'm afraid. Saint will 20:55, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Original research, speculation too far in advance. — Gwalla | Talk 00:01, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. What Everyking said. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 02:14, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, original research. James F. (talk) 03:10, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, way too much speculation. Flockmeal 05:34, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)
- "assuming an ammendment is mad to the US constitution"; how about the second one? anyway, delete. recreate in 2008. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:00, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Original research speculation. If someone wants to create an article on general future US election speculations, that might be OK. Jallan 02:05, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Delete I created the 2008 article in Dec of 2003. That resulted in a vote not to delete. In my opinion, the earliest that a 2012 page might have any useful value would be following the 2006 election. User:Mcarling 15:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. (Condoleezza Rice/Rudolph Giuliani 2008!) --Golbez 08:15, Oct 24, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.Until year 2007 it's too soon to talking about. --Sina 10:35, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. The content is near zero.
- Delete. Could be viable if speculation had begun regarding some of the candidates that appear to be positioning for a '12 bid (Barak Obama has been considered). But such speculation is unlikely until there are some '08 primary losers.
- "'Do Not Delete'". Perhaps the article can be trimmed, but I feel that the date of the election is relative information.
- Do Not Delete. The election date, the fact that the electoral votes will have been redistributed and that it will be an election with an incumbent president elligible to seek re-election (barring the highly unlikely election of George H. W. Bush or Jimmy Carter in 2008) -- Jord 22:49 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - We're going to need it sooner or later. -Litefantastic 12:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - It will be needed as we get closer to the 2008 election! Past 2012 is unneeded. --Doctorcherokee 03:37, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep What Jord said. Ryan Cable 10:17, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)