Deletion of United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination)

Comment: In my opinion, this isn't even a case of .  The subject of the 2024 election is a notable topic RIGHT NOW.  It is used in arguments, in debates, in analysis of current situations.  I agree that the article ''contains'' some useless trivia, particularly in the last section at the end, but containing some deletable cruft does not mean you delete the article. See: .  Even if you do apply , this article passes any and all criteria listed there.  Furthermore, I would keep this article if only the information currently listed there was available, and we were limited to this, BUT, I happen to know that there is a LOT more information that COULD be included.  There are plenty of additional notable and reliable sources.  Please note that ''our'' opinions, as wikipedians, as to something being "drivel" is pointless and irrelevant.  It is not our opinion of notability that matters, it is the opinion of reliable sources.  And reliable sources clearly and plainly view this topic as notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:BATHWATER||WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: After reviewing the article more carefully, I see the content, while referenced, is dangerously close to  and most of its content other than basic stats are speculations and will better be deleted anyway when the actual thing happens
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (WP:TRIVIA)

Comment: as I stated in my last vote, the 2024 election is already upon us in a very real way. Not only is the date set by the US Constitution, but there are plenty of  that discuss how organizers and even candidates are materially developing in reaction to current events. It's not like we are talking about 2060 here, where there is no feasible way of sourcing the item, even though it will be notable as well. The reality is, as I said before, that US politics makes the next two to three presidential elections relevant and filled with detail well in advance. As an aside, the reality of writing an important article is that many of the good RS today may not be locatable in 4-5 years; to write the best encyclopedia possible, we need to start in on something when it pops up as notable. We had a good discussion before, and nothing new is in the rationale for the AFD. So I don't see the reason we're all wasting our time on this again... Jeremy112233 (lettuce#History|Lettuce
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: per . For those who haven't bothered to read the policy, it states "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. 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." It's clear that a US presidential election is of sufficient wide interest. It's also clear that their are significant and reliable sources already discussing the prospects of the 2024 election. I'm not buying some arbitrary timeline "of not to be created until 2018" that editors are choosing to make up or
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per nom. and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)