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

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALL)

Comment: per nominator's rationale and analysis of the sources. The 2024 election ''per se'' dosen't pass  or  at this point. As the available coverage focuses primarily on the census data, a merge with United States census might be considered (as was done in the 1st Afd discussion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:EVENT)

Comment: per , because  is too far away to have been created yet. United States Electoral College is a potential destination for moving the information on demographics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:WAYTOOSOON)

Comment: to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. My opinion has not changed from the previous discussions, and is based on , , , and . An article on the next election is fine, I might even be convinced about an article on the next next election (2020) as we get to within a year of the previous one, but the next next next election is just silly. We can split this back off to its own article in 2020
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NORUSH||WP:COMMONSENSE)

Comment: Firstly, the prior AfD was closed as no consensus. This seems like a perfectly appropriate re-nomination to me. I always support keeping articles for future elections. But that's because people usually exercise some restraint and don't create articles for the ''next next'' election. Of course  is relevant here. If someone created an article for the election after the next election for even the UK (let alone somewhere in the global south), editors would rightly support deletion. Irrespective of all that, this does not meet . The coverage is trivial and poor quality
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:GEOBIAS||WP:GNG)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON, , , and whatever policy covers Wikipedia acting as a leading indicator.  Most of the statements regarding the election (an thus the utility of the article at present) rests on current speculation of electoral changes as the result of voter demographics changes because of the 2020 census. That will be determined once the census has occurred, and the changes have actually been implemented.  Wikipedia isn't a news leader; when there is something that has been said that is of factual value, we can say it ''after the fact'' (when we should).  Everything being predicated on the census clearly indicates that until the census happens, it's anybody's ''guess'' as to results, no matter how well-informed that guess may be, and we don't deal in pure speculation, we deal in after-the-fact collation of information
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NOTNEWS)

Comment: WP:TOOSOON. I agree with the nom. and others who've commented that the sources simply don't provide the detailed and in-depth coverage needed to pass , certainly not enough to justify having an article for a election that is 8 years and 2 election cycles away
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: and  until after the 2020 election. The prior AFD closed with a good majority to either delete or merge and should not have defaulted to keep. As before, there are no substantive sources about the future election itself that would even pass gng, merely content about demographics in that year. Popular culture references are inappropriate for the subject matter and do not provide notability - House of Cards is rightly not in the 2016 article. The remainder is generic information about American elections, nothing providing importance to the subject. Even after this year's election, anything about candidates is purely speculative and without substance until after 2020. I also urge LavaBaron not to  this discussion as in prior AFDs. Debates closed as no consensus are welcome to be reconsidered, and I kindly request someone other than Coffee to close this one
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Protection policy (WP:SALT||WP:BLUDGEON)

Comment: Per , content is trivial. It's too far out to say anything substantive about, so reliable sources cannot say anything substantive about it. I too would like to see a community guideline determine when we should create U.S. presidential articles. Thank you to the nominator for the excellent analysis of sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: There's no genuinely compelling need for |crystal ball articles about elections that are still eight years into the future, which can really say absolutely nothing of substance beyond "this is a thing that will happen, the end" — this kind of thing does not need to exist until the election in question is close enough that there's some ''meaningful'' content that can be added to it. Although it's not formal policy as such, I'd fully support a principle that a future election article should not exist until we can at least put an actual name, and not just a "TBA", in the "incumbent leader going into the election" field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)