Deletion of United States presidential election, 2016

Comment: It might help highlight the good sources if you also removed the ones that are not . Remove the forum posts, and preferably blogs (unless they are by people who are seen as important commentators
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: But it's |notable speculation, and therefore should have an article. The principal of general notability is that if independent reliable sources are covering a subject in significant detail, it should have an article. By that standard, this future event may be less notable than highly-discussed future events such as peak oil, but it's still far more notable than most future events. The sources available indicate sufficient notability for an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: per . There is nothing really useful that can be said about the 2016 election now. Eight years before the 2008 election, Barack Obama was a state senator who had just Illinois's 1st congressional district election, 2000|lost a Congressional primary in his home district by a 2-to-1 margin. Eight years before the 2000 election, George W. Bush had never been elected to any office at all. Let's wait until election night in 2012 to re-create this article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I think that rystal is being thrown around way too loosely here. The policy is intended to discourage editorial speculation, not to discourage the inclusion of notable speculation by reliable sources. Otherwise, would we even have articles like 2043, the 2150s, or the 31st century? Clearly, this topic is much more notable and relevant than many of the predictions made in those articles or the hundreds of others like them
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: per . The event is notable and will almost certainly take place, but I'm pretty sure there is no widespread speculation or discussion about it yet. Having an article on the 2012 election is worthwhile since people are speculating about that, but 2016 is pushing it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I concur with numerous editors here who invoke  as a deletion reason. Although I agree it is likely to occur, that's all we know about it. Any speculation here is sufficiently UNFounded enough as to be nothing but spitballing by people with a microphone somewhere near them. As Metropolitan90 mentioned nothing predicted 8 years before this past election proved reasonable or correct. Further, statements of who will NOT run are equally insubstiantial, as minds may change, and deaths may preclude accurate 'denials of intent to run or not run'. 2012 is more substantial; the RNC has already made some comments, the GOP PACs are picking names already, but none of them are seriously looking at 2016; they're unwilling to seriously consider an 8 year Obama yet
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per : the event is notable, almost certain to take place, and speculation about it is well documented. The article needs cleaning, including removal of links to forum postings, but content issues are not a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also the creation so far ahead of articles about US events in the absence of those in other countries fails 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Systemic bias (WP:CSB)

Comment: per . It is way too early to have this article. Can be easily created four years later
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: None of the sources I see so far are reliable as far as providing verifiable speculation is concerned. The information is unverifiable speculation as well as original research. Hence, textbook fail of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Because so many people seem to be using rystal incorrectly, I will provide quotes to the relevant portions. The policy does ''not'' ban all prediction, it simply spells out what types of prediction are appropriate. Specifically, there are three criteria that rystal uses to determine whether predictive articles are appropriate or not. I quote the summary lines below (emphasis mine), with parenthetical statements explaining why this article adheres to the relevant guidelines
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: As Aelffin pointed out, too many are quoting  seemingly without regard to its content
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Arguments to keep are based on the existence of |reliable sources, as required by . Arguments to delete are based on a subjective opinion that 2009 is to early to be speculating about the 2016 election, despite the fact that reliable sources ''are'' in fact speculating about the 2016 election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Even the original AfD nominator doesn't think it should be deleted. The points made by those who support deleting it amount to "it's messy". This is admittedly true, but that's just an invitation to improve it. While it is a long way out, there has already been plenty of speculation. If you don't like the sources I provided off the cuff, then dig up some better ones; don't just trash other editors' work because you don't feel like doing the research. Besides, attempts will continue to be made to revive this article, and in the long run, it's  so why work so hard to hold up development when you can spend your time better by improving what's already there
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOWBALL)