Deletion of Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012

Comment: Where presidential campaigns are concerned, speculation concerning potential candidates - when covered by multiple reliable sources (and is clearly identified as coming from reliable sources, not |OR)- is notable. This subject is given significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus meet . However, a rename to "Vice presidential prospects" should be considered, per Carrite's comments
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:GNG)

Comment: The article struck me as a likely case of  when I first came across it a number of days ago. |Reliably sourced speculation is still speculation. Sometimes this speculation is fun to read about, especially for political junkies (such as me) who hope Mitt Romney makes a wise selection. However, the only opinions that really matter in the VP selection process belong to Romney and the delegates of the Republican National Convention who will (presumably) officially nominate the selection. What the media think is ultimately irrelevant. Both the Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2008|2008 Republican and Democratic Party vice presidential candidates, 2008|2008 Democratic equivalents of this article should also be considered delete-worthy for the same reasons. Let's agree to leave the crystal-balling to Sabato's Crystal Ball|Sabato
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RS)

Comment: as |crystal balling. When Romney actually announces his chosen running mate, we'll be more than able to cover that properly with |reliable sources, and readers are already more than able to seek out information on the potential candidates since virtually all of them already have their own Wikipedia articles anyway — but there's no place or need on Wikipedia for an article about the advance speculation itself
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RS)

Comment: Its a highly notable, "significant impact," "lasting" topic, otability, especially for politics, with cited information and analysis about the topic. The topic of possible vice presidential candidates is definitely encyclopedic by wikipedia standards since it has long lasting significance.  Formal interviews have begun on major networks. Regarding events, Wikipedia says, "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." So it is certainly notable.  The photos enhance the topic and should also be kept. This topic is the same as past topics in the series with the same title which also included media speculation.  don't like it is not sufficient reason for requesting deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:I)

Comment: While there will be obviously much media speculation and coverage on potential VP candidates, they are not "candidates" in the sense of Romney, Newt, etc...being candidates running for public office.  This is a sort of |synthesized amalgamation of who Romney (or Paul if he can pull off his convention hijack) may possibly choose for his running mate in the fall, consisting almost entirely of media speculation and those who have announced they would decline.  IMO the subject matter would be better treated in a paragraph or two in the Romney 2012 article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)