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 and it's good to see a WP:RM discussion for settling on the title, since that seems to be somewhat contentious. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016[edit]

Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 (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)

Highly problematic article, vehicle for all sorts of partisan interventions, anything legitimate should be incorporated in the main article on this election. PatGallacher (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Earthscent: The reason we don't is because organized efforts to encourage faithlessness are unheard of, and this is recieving significant coverage. This is also developing some case law that did not exist before. This will still be notable even after a likely Trump win. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wild speculation by the media makes those media sources unreliable. Only one Republican elector has indicated he will be faithless. That is not enough to create an article. Earthscent (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And yet, we have an extensive one. Two electors resigned rather than vote, and Lessig says there could be 20-30 more It may not end up that way most likely but it is still notable and should not be buried in the larger article. As I indicated, we are also seeing some case law in this area, which is new and relevant to the future. Deleting this would be short sighted. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been any election in modern history with anywhere near the number of WP:RS discussing an effort to organize faithless electors. This year's effort is clearly notable. --19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SNOW Keep - gobs of sources, and will likely continue to be relevant even after the electoral college votes. Can we get a SNOW closure? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamilton Electors" is not a generic term for faithless electors, it's a specific subset thereof. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was. I said it is narrow in the sense that it refers only to the 2016 election, and it's broader than 'faithless', because it includes not only those who don't vote as expected. The Hamilton group covers other electors, such as those who resigned, or who have sought information on the email hacking, or done other activity. It also includes the organizers and supporters of this group, who themselves are not electors. All of those goings on have fallen under the name of Hamilton Electors, along with non-electors who are supporters of the movement. When you speak of a faithless lector of the election of 18-- you leave out other people who might have been involved; it refers only to the elector himself. Hamilton Electors is a movement of sorts that sprung into existence during this election. It's the precise, correct term for the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except if you go to Google news results for, say, recent news on Chris Suprun, you'll see plenty of headlines discussing him as a faithless elector, rather than placing him in the Hamilton group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except? No. Not except. You're aware that I already said "some use the term faithless elector". So you've proven what I already acknowledged, that some use of the term exists. What's notable about your Chris Suprun articles is that they are mostly negative news and opinionated attacks on him, or arguments that the Hamilton Electors are wrong/illegal/hopeless/silly etc. Proving what I said: it's the pejorative preferred by the anti-Hamilton Electors POV. We have a policy against POV titles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL is another reason that an article titled Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 should not exist. Until they cast their votes, there are no faithless electors in 2016. This article title is based on speculation about what people might do or have claimed they might do in the future, on December 19, 2016. The crystal ball policy allows articles about future events that are "scheduled or expected". The vote tomorrow will happen, but how the individuals will vote is not known. Maybe none of them will vote against expectations, and no faithless electors in 2016 will even exist. On the other hand, regardless of what happens tomorrow, the Hamilton Electors moment does exist in the present. It will not evaporate, regardless of how the vote happens tomorrow. The group's ideas, supporters, critics and participants will always be a historical fact that won't be changed by future events. The article Faithless elector, similarly, isn't scoped to cover discussion or activism meant to convince future electors to change their votes. Such a movement is a different topic, and in 2016 the name of that movement is Hamilton Electors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from speculating on future events; it does not prevent us from covering extensively reported speculation in reliable sources. The policy is very clear on this point: "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." (emphasis in original) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, with the evidence and reasons presented above, can this be closed as KEEP per WP:SNOW? --Jersey92 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hope not. The moment anyone puts up an alternative view, you think it should be cut short before anyone else can consider it? Let it run the usual time so everyone can have their say. All this shouting "strong" and "speedy" and "snow" sounds to me like bluster to distract from a lack of facts and sound reasoning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The organized effort turned out to be a joke. Just a big media spectacle. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dunarc: there were four faithless just in Washington State, so I take it your !vote is keep? - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianhe: Yes, in light of events I would vote Keep. Thanks, Dunarc (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: There were 8 in 1912, 27 in 1896, 63 in 1872, 23 in 1836, 32 in 1832, 7 in 1828, 19 in 1796 according to Faithless elector. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kndimov: yeah but this is the first time in quite a while (104 years if the Faithless elector article is correct), although I do agree that it is not the best reason for a keep vote, which is why I said Keep "for now". Inter&anthro (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: Don't misunderstand me, there have been faithless electors far more recently than 1904. I just listed the occasions where there were more than 7. There was 1 in 2004, 1 in 2000, 1 in 1988, 1 in 1976, 1 in 1972, 1 in 1968... etc... -- Kndimov (talk) 00:51, 20 December 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.
More