Deletion of United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination)

Comment: per Timmeh and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: per , the only existing sources are vague
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Due to the ''constant'' misunderstanding and misuse of Wikipedia:Crystal, I quote the policy below. Any future invocations of rystal should quote the portions relevant to alleged violations. My own emphasis has been added to the quotations
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Has anybody here actually read Wikipedia:Crystal? The policy specifically allows speculation, as long as the references are significant, so dismissing reputable sources is actually a ''violation'' of rystal. Last time I checked, all of the sources in this article are clearly acceptable under eliable sources. After the unprecedented 2008 election, it shouldn't be surprising that there is unprecedented interest in upcoming elections
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C||WP:R)

Comment: As was stated in the previous afd (which was what, less than 2 weeks ago? Come on), the intent  is to prevent editors from doing their own speculation as to future events. However, since reliable sources are doing plenty of their own speculation, an article on the topic is perfectly viable. The article could probably use some cleanup, but most articles could, quite frankly), but that is not, never was, and doubtfully ever will be a reason for deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: I have no view as to whether this article should be kept or deleted. But discussion of events that are highly dependent on nearly eight years of other events need to be couched carefully to avoid making logical errors or gazing into |balls. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2016&diff=267118072&oldid=267027734 this diff to see the pitfalls of loose thinking / writing on such topics. If Obama wins in 2012 but with a different VP, or if he wins with Biden but Biden doesn't serve out his full term, or if he wins and Obama doesn't serve out his full term, there would be at minimum a replacement vice president who could stand as an incumbent. These are not far-fetched scenarios (I'm not even considering wild ideas such as further amendments to the Constitution that would make it possible for a two-term president to seek a third
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: The ''facts'' are that many reliable sources have been speculating about potential candidates in 2016. Thus an article documenting those speculations is appropriate per . If there is speculation not based on reliable sources than it should be removed, but there is plenty of reliably-sourced speculation for an article to exist on this subject
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: because the world will end in 2012, making this article uncessary per .  It's too early to talk about the 2012 election, let alone 2016
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: There is not nearly enough well documented speculation. It fails . Special:Contributions/204.186.77.143|204.186.77.143
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)