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 possible. A consensus is not going to form while the events are so fluid. This can be revisited, including a potential merger, in a shorter than normal window once the situation is more settled. StarMississippi01:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the user who created the article (ElijahPepe) recently moved "Biden crisis" to "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election". [1]Some1 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The context of the campaign is irrelevant here. This article is explicitly not either of the two list articles that were created weeks ago because it covers a larger scope. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)15:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge with age and health concerns of Joe Biden. While I don't see this as an immediate WP:NPOV violation, there is merit behind the fact that there is a crisis among Democrats regarding Biden's electability – even among former President Barack Obama.
Comment — Users who are pointing to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign have not read the article. This is not a list of Democrats who have called for him to withdraw, this is an article about the internal considerations within the campaign. That includes campaign decisions and information on how such a process would occur, including the presumptive virtual roll call and Schumer's decision to delay it. Should he withdraw his nomination, this would be a great article to cover that. Nowhere in this article will there be a list of every representative, or senator, or news organization, calling for Biden to drop out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)17:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNNtwice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him)17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Virtually the same article that a prior AfD concluded in favor of redirecting (the list constituted only a part of that article). Don't see much reason why this should be a separate article. Aintabli (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Edit: Keep after the move. I've read the justification for the title's perceived POV, and I still think the title is inappropriate. Even if some WP:RS describe it as "crisis", other RS don't; I'd argue it falls under mixed usage and that we should default to a less emotionally charged title unless there's overwhelming consensus in RS on calling it "the Biden crisis". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 14:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, and the title is not as supported by RS as it looks like. Three references use it, but only in the headlines, and not in the body like they would if "Biden crisis" was an actual named event rather than headlinese. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain my above redirect vote, that the main campaign article, the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article, and the convention article will all include this and other relevant information and a duplicative page is not necessary; a separate split discussion may be subsequently appropriate. Reywas92Talk18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Now that the "Biden crisis" is over and has culminated in Biden's resignation, this article's scope has expanded into a much more notable event. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep:
The withdrawal of a campaign this late into the trail is unprecedented and a noteworthy event in American history. Monological (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Yes, Biden withdrew from the race, and yes it's notable, but we still don't need a separate article. Certain things can simply be in a section even if they are very notable, as the actual content of Biden dropping out can be covered easily in one paragraph in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk)
Speedy keep This is a monumental shakeup of the American political landscape, and will likely have ripples around the world, which would merit an expansion as comments come in. Windrays (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Very little reasoning behind deletion; Further details regarding the event will inevitably be provided within the forthcoming days, not to mention that this is quite arbitrary given the spectacle of information currently available. Queries regarding why are futile. WP:TOOSOON
Delete The existence of this article violates the policy of WP:RECENT and sets an unmangable precedent. In the future, if (and probably when) American presidents drop out of races, are we going to need to create articles for all those situations too? It would be best to restrict discussion of this event to the existing article on Biden's presidential campaign; we can circle back to the issue later but I don't foresee this being worthy of an entire article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event and should maintain its own article. I could see it being deleted when it was "Biden crisis", but the official withdrawal makes this a monumental moment in American politics, since the withdrawal/refusal of an eligible incumbent reelection bid hasn't happened in nearly 60 years. AmericanBaath (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just because there isn't an article for LBJ in 1968, doesn't mean there couldn't or shouldn't be. In this case, recentism may benefit the ability to build out a comprehensive article about an event that almost certainly merits more than a section underneath the campaign article. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A merging of all the details in this article can go to the other (per nom). We do not have a corresponding withdrawal article for LBJ (1968 announcement) and the same should be applied here. — ThatCopticGuyping me! (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Article's notability has radically changed in light of Biden's withdrawal from the 2024 United States presidential election. I recommend that a closer reviews it in light of this information. KlayCax (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Biden's withdrawal in the first of a major candidate since 1968, has received overwhelming attention in the press, and easily passed the 10 year test. I believe that this article is now a speedy close under the name: Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election.KlayCax (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This topic will be subject to months, if not years of coverage and analysis due to the unprecedented decision and the weeks of never-before-seen intraparty politicking to get this to happen. You can summarize any number of articles in one or two paragraphs (which is what Main article sections are meant to do). Regardless, the reactions and effects of this decision will be felt quite literally for the rest of American history, and as such should have its own article for present and future analysis of the effects of this decision. Baldemoto (talk) 20:04, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it WP:CRYSTAL to say that if the president died, the repercussions would be massive and widely felt? Would we have to wait until we see the repercussions of such an event before making a page about it? This decision has thrown a wrench into the entire American political process, and it should be evidently obvious on the face of it that this will change the entire nature of this presidential race, and, by extension, what happens after the fact. Baldemoto (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL is within reason. It's not crystal balling to presume the sun will rise tomorrow, even though there is an infiniteismal chance that it will not and existence will cease due to e.g. a surprise supernova, or false vacuum event. Likewise, there is an infiniteismal chance that this withdrawal will suddenly cease the media buzz (as if it's already insufficient whilst Hawk Tuah Girl survived deletion lol), but let's not be ridiculous. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk)00:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually exactly what it means. The change this means for the 2024 presidential election and the inner turmoil this will put the party through is unprecedented. Far beyond one or two paragraphs in another article. TrueCRaysball💬|✏️20:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Biden has withdrawn. This has made worldwide headlines and is the latest withdrawal in U.S. history before the November election, thus being extremely notable per WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So what it happened? I don't understand what makes this topic so special that it can't just be covered in the campaign and presidency pages. Does every other presidential withdrawal need a page dedicated to it? Wowzers122 (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does if the withdrawal is from a current sitting president who had every intention of running again. This is a completely unprecedented decision in American history and one which will have far-reaching repercussions. C'mon, guys. Baldemoto (talk) 20:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, Speedy Keep, and disregard any !votes prior to Biden stepping down on 21 July. The nomination was in good faith I'm sure, but it's no longer relevant. This is a rapidly developing major news event, and the article being nominated was not the same as the article now. Title could use some work. Maybe "Election withdrawal of Joe Biden" would be a bit more succinct than the current title of "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election", but that's neither here nor there. --Voyager 1 Low Battery Alert (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect no need for a stand alone page at this time. Biden's withdrawal is irrelevant to whether this needs to be a stand alone page or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - now that the withdrawal has actually happened there should be an article about it. When this was first nominated it was just about speculation/pressure to drop out, and yesterday I would have !voted differently. But now it documents a notable event, rather than a collection of opinions and rumours, so keep. Would be good to merge Age and health concerns of Joe Biden into it. BugGhost🦗👻20:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still part of a wider narrative which already has a page, and I'm not seeing any compelling argument for why this specific moment within that narrative requires its own page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems curious, to me, to delete a page, or advocate deleting a page, about something that has... happened, and very much been reported to have happened. ——Serial Number 5412920:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not every event that has been covered by news outlets is notable. This event is of course notable, and is widely covered, but that doesn't mean we need a separate page for it. Not every event that makes global headlines needs a separate page if it can be covered without size concerns in the main article, which in this case is Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, eleven-year-old editor, I'm well aware that it has been covered in multiple reliable, independent sources. I agree that this topic is very much notable, but we do not need a separate article for it as it can be adequately be covered in full in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Not every event that would pass the GNG needs a separate article if it would not be very long as such and would not have size concerns if it were simply a section in the main article, which would be fine here. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow. How disparaging is it to link the words "one year old editor" to the contributing editor's username. Clearly your ten or eleven years as an "editor" have not taught you any degree of respect for other human beings. Perhaps you know that many people in science and academia also disparage Wikipedia? Have you ever considered why that might be? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, that article should be merged into this one. When history looks back on Biden's 2024 campaign, most ink will be spilled about his decision to withdraw. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now there is no way of knowing how long the article could be and due to the event happening merely a few hours ago there isnt enough information due to the fact it may violate WP:RECENTTakis S1 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I will endorse merging per above if several reliable contributors volunteer for this - each article is already substantial at this point, and I expect a lossless merge and thereby necessary restructuring will be at least three hours' work. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:AEA8 (talk) 20:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Given the preceding weeks and considerable reporting going forward this article has already met the requirements for standing on its own. Kcmastrpc (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This is an example of why we are failing NOTNEWS. Way too detailed coverage for what we are supposed to cover for an encyclopedic summary of the news. Coverage in the campaign article is far more appropriate. --Masem (t) 21:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how originally it would've made sense to remove the page and merge its contents into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, however due to him stepping down from the race, I feel like this article has become notable enough to remain, due to it being the first premature end of campaign for an incumbent since Lyndon B. Johnson's withdrawal in March 1968 (so 56 years, 3 months and 22 days now) and the first withdrawal of an incumbent after the presidential debates since they began in earnest in 1960. maemolol, arbiter of æ (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a historically significant event which already has a large amount of context useful to document separate from the main article, a section on the main article would likely miss important information ObjectOrientedCat (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it's a current event and people will be searching for information for it and an article will offer more information in a more organized manner. Maybearidan (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. We're not running a current affairs ticker - this is an encyclopedia, and there is no reason for an encyclopedia to treat today's events as so completely separate from the wider campaign that they need their own article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and merge) for now, if nothing else. But I'd recommend waiting a bit longer to see how lengthy and well-sourced this article becomes, to determine whether or not it deserves to be independent of other articles. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a real discussion? Of course we will keep this article. This covers a topic that holds verifiable information about a real-world subject and contributes to the overall comprehensiveness of human knowledge.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how does that justify it being a separate article? That's what's contested here, and no amount of people saying 'it's notable' or 'it's true' or 'it's verifiable' or 'it's a current news story' addresses that key question. As with the ITN nomination for this story, people are so intent on defending the idea that it's important that they're not stopping to answer the question posed, which is 'should we handle it like this?' GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there's relatively little new content not covered in a half dozen other articles. Take away the padding, and the transcribed text of Biden's letter, and you've got a few decent paragraphs. More words doesn't mean better writing. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: OK, I am not a registered user on here, but as an unregistered user, my thoughts reflect the thousands of Wikipedia readers who may see this article and go "This is being nominated for deletion?!" The removal of Kevin McCarthy is notable enough for an article but this is not?? This is breaking news and has made headlines worldwide, which is a given as this is a huge event that marks a literal turning point in the election. It's not just about Joe Biden's campaign ending, it's about all that led up to it and all that will result from it. This is historic cause a sudden (and I mean sudden) revolt against a party's presumptive nominee is unheard of in modern times, and no one has ever withdrawn so close to the election, after the debate and so close to the Democratic convention. This convention will be like no other because of this. There is so much to write about here. Some of y'all are saying this is recentism since the withdrawal of LBJ doesn't have an article, but this article already has a substantial amount of content cause of how notable it is, and more to come, cause the effects of this are still unfolding. It has made headlines worldwide already cause it is just so unprecedented in recent times and again, it is a literal turning point in the election. Whatever precedents exist on Wikipedia, yall just cannot say that this is not notable enough for an article. 71.28.113.196 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This is an extremely significant event in world history and in the history of the USA. Only twice in 235 years has the incumbent President has not sought re-election. The LJB case was different for a whole host of reasons. The Biden case is different and significant for a whole host of reasons - in particular the fact that the decision was prima facie not of the President's making. The day before withdrawing he insisted for the umpteenth time that he would not withdraw - it should be clear that he was ousted, that he did not genuinely quit of his own volition. That is politically significant. Nobody knows what the next four and a half years will hold - but today's announcement virtually guarantees that Republican Donald Trump will be President for a second term from 2025 to 2029. Biden's withdrawal is a history-changing moment - we won't know how significant a history-changing moment it was until the next five years have played out. Here is a tenuous analogy that all-the-same is, I think, pertinent, interesting and undeniable - JFK's assassination has its own WP page (it's not merged with his main article). JFK's assassination brought about an involuntary end to his Presidency, and the ripples of that moment are still being felt to this day. Does anyone really believe that Biden voluntary ended his re-election campaign? How can you insist yesterday that you WILL CONTINUE and today announce that you are stepping down? While his Presidency continues for the time-being, his re-election campaign is dead. Perhaps between now and January 2025 we'll see him resign the Presidency to his VP Kamala Harris. That's a "what if" scenario. Is it likely? I think so. Taking all this into account, today is a momentous occurrence in US political history. Every President (except those assassinated while in office) has experienced around 75 days of being a Lame Duck President. We now have a situation where Joe Biden faces 183 days of Lame Duck Presidential status. That is unprecedented (pun acknowledged but not intentional). If you doubted the suggestion that Biden will soon resign, perhaps you will think again. Whether he stays or resigns, today's announcement is a landmark moment akin to JFK's assassination or Nixon's resignation.
That's some WP:CRYSTAL nonsense you've got there, not to mention a lot of editorialising about the campaign, rather than about the substantive question for this discussion page. Nothing you've said justifies today's events specifically having a page that's separate from the main one about Biden's campaign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massive Juicy Thicc Keep. This is a major historical event in US political history and is an incredibly rare anomaly in American political history. Biden's withdrawal is a significant event in not only this election, but in American history. It is a watershed moment for the 2024 Presidential Election. TheCubingCow (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While it isn’t that much info since it is recent, there will be more information that will be added into the article. Additionally, this event is pretty rare since LBJ not accepting his second term as president in 1968. Zekromu88 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally, a candidate dropping out of a primary race is not noteworthy enough to have its own article. However, the unprecedented event of an incumbent president dropping out of a primary race after securing a majority of delegates, alongside the weeks/months of prominent Democrats calling for Biden to drop out, is significant enough to warrant its own article. The 2024 Biden campaign article can provide a summary explaining that he dropped out, and this article can go into more detail. I see this article's scope as going into more detail.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are already plenty of articles about that election, including specifically about Biden's campaign, which could carry this information. You can Capitalise As Many Common Words as you like - that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenevieveDEon I feel that you are out of order for criticizing and dismissing another editor simply because they capitalised certain words in their text. Some people do that unconsciously out of habit, some people do it because of paralexical conditions, some people do it simply for emphasis. And above all, this discussion is about whether or not the article is "redundant", to use your argot - therefore it is fallacious to assert "that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article" since the "argument" (n.b. WP prefers the word discussion) is concerned with the very issue of possible redundancy.
Keep - As a wider point, I think it is crucial that editors contributing to this discussion set aside any party-political allegiances and consider the noteworthiness of today's events purely from a future-historical standpoint. As a British citizen I can happily say that my views on the historical importance of this article (as a standalone article) are not influenced by party-politics. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also British, and I'm revolted by the wild level of American exceptionalism on display both in this discussion and the ITN one. And while drawing attention to another user's capitalisation might be a little unfair, I was doing it to underscore my wider point: a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed for it when there are already other articles. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is heartening that you seem to have calmed down, thank you for that. Being frank, I'm not interested in your nationality or how revolting you are.
You lost me at "a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed". Genuinely, without the merest hint of reflecting your belligerence, isn't the significance of the event the absolutely decisive, key factor in whether a separate article is required?Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The decisive factor when it's a subtopic like this is whether there's enough material to justify a separate article. Otherwise we can and should merge back to the main article. See WP:SPLIT. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm using 'argument' in the sense of 'a series of reasoned statements directed at a conclusion', rather than the sense of 'a row'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you already !voted - I just saw you responding to me below your original !vote, and yet you've also bolded the word 'keep' down here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known anybody who was triggered by the word triggered before. As to the double-vote issue - I strongly suspect the outcome isn't triggered by the number of times the word keep appears in bold. I'm sure it's much more scientific than that - like using math or some such technology. I'm tickled at how you initially tried to deny me my one vote, by being blithely dismissive, and now you're accusing me of election-interference by taking two! I hope you'll keep on editing with such fervour. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close: the topic of this AFD has fundamentally changed part way through, with Biden's withdrawal announcement. A lot of earlier !votes are irrelevant given the change in factual situation (from pressure on Biden to withdraw to his actual withdrawal). I think it makes this AFD too confusing. Close it, and then if people want to delete the current article, those who do so can open a new nomination starting from a blank slate. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a major event right now, it appears on the current events page, and it would be inappropriate to delete it, at least for now, at a later date, it could be merged with other articles concerning Bidens run, however, for now it should be kept as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieMoomin07 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Close per SomethingForDeletion: I agree, this seems to be such an imprecise discussion by now that it's best off to close it and start anew, where the arguments for and against can be put much more clearly. If, for whatever reason, that's improper AfD procedure (I don't know, I'm rarely round these parts), then Keep. Gazamp (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign per above. Plenty of candidates have withdrawn from presidential elections, and plenty of sitting leaders have resigned from positions of power. We do not, however, create dedicated articles for this. Instead, attempting to keep it as part of a parent article where the entire context is provided. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. However, I must add that they are either disambiguation/redirects to political crisis/coup articles, or themselves being a standalone article about the developments leading to the resignation. For example, if Resignation of Jacinda Ardern is to be deleted, there are no alternative articles that describe the complete dynamic leading up to the resignation. In Biden's case the campaign article should be sufficient. Having two articles is unnecessary duplication of the exact same things. They both touch upon his presidency, they both touch upon his primary performance, they both talk about his debate performance, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're advocating for just deleting over one hundred editor's points-of-view and starting again. On the face of it that does sound like improper procedure, yes. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my intention, just adding my two cents onto what is a very unwieldly discussion. Seeing as what everyone's talking about has changed so much in the few hours that we've been talking about it, I don't think it serves any of us well to continue. 100% fair enough if others whole-heartedly disagree though - that's what this is about. Gazamp (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign which already discusses his run for re-election and the urges for him to withdraw prior to doing so, which renders this page a bloated and completely unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK, though at least the biased "Biden crisis" title has thankfully been changed to "Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election". SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone was very aggressive but I for one magnanimously accept your apology madam. As an issue of fact, neither Truman nor LBJ withdrew from their campaigns. Both chose not to run for reelection and therefore neither had "campaigns" from which to "withdraw". You also fall foul of the (really rather serious) argumentative fallacy of presenting a finite number (i.e. two) of (factually incorrect, as it happens) occurrences as proof of many occurrences - when in actuality there are only two factually incorrect occurrences to support your argument.Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - This is an extremely importan and unprecedented moment in US History. But the article's title is unnecessarily long. Something like 2024 Biden Campign Withdrawal would be much better and more concise. Tomhol811 (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blatantly Obvious Keep, the RS are abundant, this will probably be the subject of an "In the news", not-quite-but-almost unique historical event, what more needs to be said? Joe (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep This is the first incumbent president to withdraw from reelection in 60 years (since Lyndon B. Johnson), and more notably it happened only 4 months before the actual election. The close proximity to the election is notable for the campaign for whoever becomes the final Democratic candidate since they'll be starting (or gaining traction) so late. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an incumbent President being basically pushed out from reelection by his party is absolutely unprecedented, and considering the admittedly low standard for stand-alone articles regarding incredibly specific things concerning US presidents (we have a covfefe article and its not even that short) this absolutely deserves an article, coverage of the behind the scenes plotting before this even will undoubtedly come out and cant just be shoved into the primary article. If anything, the pro forma primary is so insignificant in comparison that it could well be mentioned in passing in this article. — jonas (talk) 00:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait, why is everyone so quick to place deletion tags on pages that are far less worthy of being deleted than other pages on WP? C'mon, man. Folks, the idea that this subject hasn't been sweeping the nation's news is total malarkey. TrevortniDesserpedx (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Maybe the people who object to this article hold on to some old version? The article has evolved tremendously since the nomination. Probably this AfD is best closed as keep or no consensus because reactions seem to be confused. It would force editors to face the new situation. gidonb (talk)
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.