Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 (2nd 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 merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Now that the election is over, this article is truly unnecessary. The people listed in the article were never "candidates" in any way, but rather prominent Republicans whose names were mentioned by media pundits. The article is just what the media saw in their WP:CRYSTALBALL, not encyclopedic material. Besides my opposition to the inclusion of the meaningless prognostications of the media's talking heads—several of these "candidates" had clearly declined interest months before the announcement, and others (Trump) are nonsense—there is no need for a separate article for this information. Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection could easily be expanded with prose with what information isn't already there, as well as a few shortlisted candidates; a photo gallery is unnecessary. Reywas92^Talk 02:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a notable topic, researched, cited. Concerns about speculation now are moot. Whether or not vice presidents "run" is irrelevant (Constitution says yes). Shadowjams (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One expects a "candidate" to have been nominated for an office, or to actively seek it. The crystal-ball media speculation that Romney might pick one of these names does not constitute their candidacy. Very few persons have actually ever announced that they want to be picked as vice president. (Endicott Peabody was one who did, in 1972. Edison (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list of people who were considered to be potential candidates is an instructive thing to have and it belongs on an encyclopedia. AutomaticStrikeout (Evidence) 01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If it wasn't all media based and there was campaigning for the position, yes but its not the case here. Secret ^account 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Besides WP:USEFUL and WP:UNENCYC and the fact the the key potential candidates can be merged, this is just media speculation of prominent politicians, not necessarily those actually considered by Mr. Romney. His considerations are best on his campaign article. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Delete Edison is right on here. This is the exact definition of original research, a race does not exist for the vice president of the United States. There's isn't really much campaigning and so forth for the job. The presidential nominee is the one who decides to become his vice presidential running mate. This article is just media speculation on who Romney might select for vice president or politicians stating they may be interested if picked. That's not what Wikipedia is used for. If there was actual campaigning for the job, it's a clear keep of course, but there wasn't as far as we know, if there was that's a whole different news story (and article) of course. Secret ^account 01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your problem is purely with the relationship of the title to the material, and the article title is poorly chosen and inaccurate. The content itself is not original research because it is merely reporting on verifiable reports on and media commentary about Romney's choice for a running mate, so if this were to continue to exist as a separate article that issue would be cured by retitling to something like Selection of Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2012. postdlf (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this ceases to be of encyclopedic value now that the election is over, because a major party candidate's campaign decisions are of lasting historical importance. WP:CRYSTALBALL is also inapplicable because this isn't unverifiable Wikipedia editor speculation, but rather in the vein of "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field..." That said, this probably could be merged to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012, by condensing the whole media speculation section into a prose paragraph or two. Cataloging every name ever thrown out there is excessive and unnecessary, let alone expanding it into a picture gallery. Instead, the main names considered should be discussed with attribution, and maybe a "other possibilities considered were X, Y, and Z" sentence or two. The sections on the campaign selection process and on the announcement should definitely stay (in whichever article these end up) and perhaps be expanded, as that's the real substance of the topic. If kept separately, this should also be renamed per my comment above as the current title is an inaccurate description. postdlf (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One further observation: major media outlets are themselves major players in U.S. presidential campaigns, particularly since much of the "speculation" they are reporting on is not simply a trivial game of trying to guess an outcome, but instead made by pundits or other politicians who are deliberately trying to influence the selection process or public opinion about the campaign, or even the result of campaign leaks to test the waters with various names (all of which I am confident could ultimately be explained and sourced). The very act of discussing the VP selection by these media outlets inevitably influences the selection and reaction to it and so is part of the history of the election. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012 as detailed by User:Postdlf. Per Postdlf's arguments, the content has lasting encyclopedic value, but probably not so much as to justify an entire article (and certainly not a picture gallery!). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddcm8991 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem I have with this article is that it confuses announced, rumored, and never-serious candidates. It also confuses candidacy to be Romney's VP-candidate with candidacy in the presidential election. A bit about vice-president considerations under the 2012 presidential election/campaign articles would suffice. This article is more rumor than fact, and not encyclopedia by a stretch.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of other articles and per those above. Royal Mate1 22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which other articles? WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:PERNOM. Reywas92^Talk 00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With rare exceptions (e.g. Mike Gravel in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that mattered was Romney's and he only seriously considered a handful of people. Some of the entries put in the article show a complete lack of understanding of American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: for example, there was never even a remote chance that Romney would pick Rand Paul or Nikki Haley or Donald Trump (!). So both the rationale for the article (there are candidates) and the content of the article (who the candidates were) are completely off-base. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Per Wasted Time R. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:08, 3 December 2012 (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.