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 delete. There's consensus not to keep this in mainspace. It's doubtful whether there's sufficient support to move it to draft space, but I guess anybody can request that via WP:REFUND if they want to work on it. Sandstein 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2024[edit]

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)

Following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination), the article was deleted and the title salted (by @The Wordsmith: until after the 2020 election, so it is disappointing that this has been recreated. Convention for election articles has been that there should not be articles for events beyond the next election, as there is not substantive information beyond speculation about the event due to, for example, the incumbent party being unknown. A MfD for a draft-space article closed as keep, but the participants there were voting to keep the draft, not to move it to mainspace against the prior consensus. Should for some reason this be closed differently from the previous discussion, I would beg that WP:CRYSTAL speculation on potential candidates be banned until after the 2020 election. As was noted in the previous AFD, the demographic changes sources are not connected to this election itself, and neither that section nor the popular culture section even have corresponding content in the 2016 or 2020 articles, leaving negligible content actually about the 2024 election itself. Reywas92^Talk 23:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep extremely bad form to take a page to XfD immediately after it was kept at XfD. There is clearly significant public discourse in reliable sources about candidates following an (assumed) Trump 2nd term. Legacypac (talk) 23:36, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that XfD closed to keep it as a draft, it was not a consensus to move the page to mainspace. It is bad form to recreate a deleted article without a clear change in consensus to overturn the previous one (perhaps including those who weighed in before), which that did not provide; this even falls under WP:CSD#G4. United States presidential election, 2020 has criteria for inclusion of speculation: potential candidates require two recent substantive reliable sources that the individual may run that year, not a kitchen-sink lists of names ruminating about the distant future – many sources used are speculating about both 2020 and 2024 together. If people want a list of people that are being theorized about, Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 and Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 have it and this redundancy serves no purpose. Reywas92^Talk 23:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 October 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in previous discussion: @Hallward's Ghost: @Jakec: @L.tak: @Metropolitan90: @AusLondonder: @GoodDay: @4meter4: @Staszek Lem: @Athomeinkobe: @MSJapan: @Bearcat: @MisterRandomized: @Deathlibrarian: @LadyofShalott: @Iamozy: @Fieari: @Purplebackpack89: @Spirit of Eagle: @DGG: @331dot: @FreeKnowledgeCreator: @Rhododendrites: @Ahecht: @Anarchyte: @Timtrent:. Reywas92^Talk 23:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Seems to me we have two votes that have decided this is to stay off mainspace - one that voted for it to be deleted, another voting for it to be kept off mainspace as a draft. I think it should remain off mainspace, and peeps can work on the draft if need be. Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)\[reply]

Blatant misrepresentation of an MfD this user did not participate in. Legacypac (talk) 06:21, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It's too early to have this article on mainspace. We've yet to have the United States presidential election, 2020 held, let alone the 2018 mid-terms. GoodDay (talk) 01:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:09, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guarantee that an election will be held in 2024. An election is currently scheduled for 2024. The only thing we know for sure about the year 2024 is that it will have 12 months and 366 days. DS (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

they are about equally probable. We could abolish the US Constitution, or we could abolish the Gregorian calendar. There are some less likely possibilities, but I cannot think of any more likely. It's much more likely there will be an election than that WP will be around to record it, especially if we devote ourselves to rejecting atricles ofn that sort of basis.

• Delete per WP:TOOSOON. The names there are only guesses which are WP:SPECULATION and none of them are actually running for president in 2024 at this time. Also, this is basically a WP:INDISCRIMINATE item at the moment. I guess draftifying is a viable option.

MarnetteD|Talk 02:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I thought it obvious to return this to mainspace, and I still do. The article is about the Reliably published political planning and speculation for the election. WP follows the sources, not our opinion., The sources are already writing about the election, and about these candidates in terms of the election, so there is basis for an article. It's hardly indiscriminate There are about 160 million potential candidates (US-born, over 35)--most of them are not included. Only the 1 in ten million about whom there are sources. We can add those others as the sources talk about them. DGG ( talk ) 02:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would probably take until after the 2020 election to get a clearer picture on potential candidates.
• Delete, without prejudice against recreation after the 2020 election. There's literally less than zero need for this to already have an article six years in advance: there's virtually nothing of substance to be said about it yet, and we have no idea what the issues are going to be or who the serious candidates are going to be (Kanye West, my ass). There's a longstanding consensus to permit articles about the immediate next election, yes, but there's an equally longstanding consensus not to jump ahead past the immediate next election, and I see no credible reason to overturn that now. Bearcat (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move Back to draft. Too early to have an article like this over 6 years in advance. Having a good one prepared should be a priority however. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. As I said before, an article on the next presidential election (2020) is fine, and I might even be convinced about an article on the next next election (2024) as we get to within a year of the previous one provided that the depth of sources are there, but the having an article at this point is just silly. Keep it as a draft until at least late 2019. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:21, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too much speculation right now. I agree with Bearcat, after 2020 Election. So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify We can justify keeping this as a draft. But as of now, the article would be pure speculation. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why did you think I nominated the draft for deletion? A pure crystal, should've not been kept at all, let alone moved to mainspace. funplussmart (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  And the reason why I don't think moving this to the draft namespace it is okay either is because it can mislead new editors into thinking that this is appropriate for Wikipedia. funplussmart (talk) 21:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify if it is determined that the information presented in the demographic changes section is insufficient for a stand-alone article at this time. Keep with stipulation that most of the speculation of candidates be removed, if it is determined that the information in this section is sufficient for a stand-alone article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 04:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to United States elections, 2024. The speculation about candidates is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON; I don't think credible sources are willing to make definitive statements about 2024 candidacies until they know who wins the 2020 election. However, there seems to be enough other coverage to have something. After the elections next week, the initial 2024 Senate map will be set, and there will be enough for at least one article on the 2024 US elections; that first article should be United States elections, 2024. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lets first bother about 2020, it is too early now. Alex-h (talk) 09:52, 2 November 2018 (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.