Deletion of United States presidential election, 2024

Comment: per Reywas92. The current sources provide only general demographic data that includes election year 2024, but no significant coverage or specific details regarding the 2024   election per se. A case of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: as |too soon for an article.  The page seems to consist of only the fact that it will occur after the next census and speculation about how the census will affect electors; other than this speculation few if any RS seem to be discussing this vote that is not even for the next president, but for the one after that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)

Comment: As the contents of the article make evident, it's clearly too soon for a standalone article; a collection of contradictory speculation does not meet . Past precedent with the 2012 and 2016 articles being deleted twice as premature (last time in 2008 and 2009 respectively) is also indicative that this article is premature
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I read  as specifically proscribing ''this very article''. In its text, it mentions the 2020 election as notable, and later elections as not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: If I understand correctly, speculation and analyses of trends in state populations and the political inclinations of those populations are giving some news figures a bit of material to talk about the 2024 election on the basis of electoral college gains or losses. As far as I can see, other than throwaway speculation about who might run, the only good sources are about those figures. Why could this not be covered in one of the articles about the electoral college, congressional appointments, or the census? Changes brought by the census, by the way, are not unique to 2024. This 2012 ''Washington Post'' article is titled https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/12/18/think-2012-was-bad-for-republicans-wait-until-2032/ "Think 2012 was bad for Republicans? Just wait until 2032". 2032! I'd be willing to bet we can find some for 2044 (and beyond), too. (The 2032 election is, by the way, is one of the examples given of an inappropriate article at ). I wouldn't be opposed to a '''merge''' but find it unlikely that it'll make sense to keep this as a redirect. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL)

Comment: as there is already some analysis of the election, enough to forge a sufficiently unspeculative article, as long as  is followed. As soon as we present speculation as speculation, and it would not be harmful to present the speculation (a good indicator of this is speculation by otherwise acknowledged people), I see no harm in speculation. This also allows readers to gain knowledge of the circumstances and viewpoints behind the 2024 US presidential election, and supports other content such as the 2020 census; it belongs on Wikipedia and an encyclopedia.  exists to bar harmful or superstitious speculation; however, the number of reputable political experts speculating means that it does not apply
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: as  and .  Far too soon
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: due to requests for more information: There ''were'' policy based reasons argued here for '''both''' keeping ''and'' deleting the article; and in their most quintessential manner those arguments manifested as a differentiation of one's personal understanding of . And, neither side was able to produce an unquestionable delineation of that policy, yet there were over 28 days of continuous discussion allowed between the two sides. This, to any reasonable man, would appear to identify two things: '''1.''' that there is a much bigger issue at hand, and '''2.''' in light of this, an unambiguous comprehension of the community's consensus cannot possibly be ascertained justly by this isolated, unannounced - at least to the scale necessary in this case - inquiry, (as is noted in our deletion policy: ''"Outcomes should reflect the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus|rough consensus reached in the deletion discussion and Wikipedia:Consensus#Level of consensus|community consensus on a wider scale. (While Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change|consensus can change, consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.)"'')... but instead must be found by a larger examination of the matter by the whole community via a discussion (recommended action would be a RFC) of . After such a discussion is held, and a clear determination is made as to what is '''precisely''' seen as "too far into the future" to be retained on the encyclopedia, an administrator would potentially be able to place more weight to one side of this debate over the other. Until then, it ''would'' be a "supervote" for an administrator to make a dichotomized judgement on this AFD. - Now I'm sure this decision (or, more accurately, non-decision) does not make everyone happy, as it's not a solution to everyone's concerns. But, I feel that it would be completely unjust, and rash, of me to instead act in a supposititious manner on what is currently quite a contentious topic. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Most of this article is a speculative psephological and demographical analysis of a change that will happen in 2024, and in my view the page is presently being used as a  for that analysis. That elector redistribution should have its own article if that is deemed a notable subject (after all, the effects of that redistribution will affect subsequent elections as well). I think that this demographical content is plumping what is otherwise a very bare-bones article. Nevertheless, if it were stripped back to that bare-bones article, I'd be on the fence about whether it was too soon or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

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. The article is clearly acceptable and in allignement with wikipedia policy on covering future events. Best
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: nbsp; WP:CRYSTAL states, "...the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."&nbsp; This doesn't mean unverifiable speculation regarding the coverage expected in December 2024.&nbsp; The applicable event notability guideline is .&nbsp;  says, "Editors should bear in mind ''recentism'', the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance."&nbsp; I believe that there is consensus here that this topic as it is being handled today will not be in this article in December 2024.&nbsp; Recentism is shown.&nbsp; But eletion policy#Alternatives to deletion states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."&nbsp; Merging to US Census doesn't directly address the questions of how will we cover this topic before December 2024, and how will the material in the current article be covered in 2030.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NEVENTS||WP:NEVENTS||WP:D)

Comment: to 2020 United States Census, as the sourced material is more about the census than the election. Since LavaBaron requires arguments beginning with WP:, I'll say , , , , and, most importantly, 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:NORUSH||WP:COMMONSENSE||WP:DOSPAGWYA)

Comment: primarily per nom and Aspirex's comment. This isn't even a particularly close call. There is tons of precedent that these types of "articles" are basically proscribed. Additionally, every single "per  keep should be discarded as frivolous, since that page explicitly states that such articles as this one shouldn't exist. This is little more than a |coatrack for various theories and viewpoints. As someone mentioned above there might be a small amount of content that could be assimilated into the 2020 Census article, but that's it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTALBALL||WP:COATRACK)

Comment: per . I find it odd that people are citing the same policy as a reason to keep. I suggest anyone unfamiliar with the policy read it. The longer, relevant name of the policy is actually, "Wikipedia is '''not''' a crystal ball." (emphasis added
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: On further consideration, I am formally going to vote for deletion. This is on the grounds of a) the article being used as a coatrack for a generic demographical discussion and having little other verifiable content and b) for consistency with the / precedent consensuses cited by the nominator. I do not believe that the case of the 2020 Election page cited by LavaBaron as a precedent-breaker is applicable in this AfD, as the former took place five years in advance of its election and the latter is taking place 8¾ years in advance of its election, almost a full cycle earlier
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON||WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Mostly per {{u|Aspirex}}. Also, after looking at the sources I do not believe that there is enough in depth discussion of this topic to make it pass  at this point in time
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)