Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012 (3rd nomination)

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 Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

United States presidential election, 2012[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL, of interest only to the US Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't think WP:CRYSTAL applies here. It states, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." This is obviously a notable event which is certain to take place. The article cites numerous reliable sources which speculate in detail about the election. While speculation done by Wikipedia editors is discouraged, speculation by reliable sources is just fine. The article could use some style work, but all the candidates listed and the election in general have been a subject of many articles published by reliable sources. Tim meh 01:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination) was a clear example of crytal. This one's much closer, sure to happen, and has many serious in-depth speculative references. Many users are carefully maintaining the page to prevent it from being excessive. I suggest you remove the US-interest-only nonsense from your reasoning. Is is any different from United States presidential election, 2008 or United States presidential election, 1796? You might not be, but I'm sure some foreigners might be looking forward to who'll challenge Obama. Reywas92 ^Talk 01:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, it's speculative, but the speculation is detailed enough to warrant an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Bad faith nomination, this user has also been trolling the Obama page. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - This is an excellent article. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - certainly going to happen —Chris! _ct 02:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Crystal doesn't apply as above, good article. Dayewalker (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Per Timmeh. Gage (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Exception 1 of WP:CRYSTAL applies. Umbralcorax (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2009 (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.