June 2024 United States presidential debate: The argument is about whether or not this is a duplicate of the content on that page, especially the section about the CNN debate last night; or, in other words, could a separate article be sustained on the debate?  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To add, I hold that there is enough background information that should be considered.  The specifics of this debate—sidestepping the Commission on Presidential Debates, Kennedy's Federal Election Commission complaint, Biden's performance and calls to withdraw that will not be entertained, critical reception such as "This Debate, We Could Hear Biden Speak. There His Troubles Began." , and a misguided Twenty-Fifth Amendment invocation proposal —suggest a debate that is unique and would not be sufficiently covered in an article about the debates in general, including the CPD's canceled debates and the forthcoming debate on ABC News on September 10.  This situation occurred twelve years ago with Obama, some may add, but the consequences of this debate are much grander.  To that end, there is paranoia surrounding this topic and many an unwarranted fear that should not be conflated with legitimate fallout.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 20:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America .  Shellwood ( talk ) 20:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge 2020 United States presidential debates was perfectly able to cover all of that year's debates in one article, and 2024 United States presidential debates can do the same.  All of this coverage can and should go in the main article, where 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) covers it quite well already.  This page has far too much duplication of the main article.  I must YET AGAIN ask Elijahpepe not to create articles on current events when there is an existing article that covers it perfectly well already and to propose a WP:SPLIT on the talk page to get some input first.  Yes, there was a lot of next-day media coverage, as will every debate, but that even if you could write a ridiculous amount of detail about everything that was said and every response, that still does not mean there should be a separate article with such a level detail and duplication.  There will be more debates this year, which will also receive a flurry of media coverage, but they just don't need standalone pages.  I vehemently disagree with the idea that that this debate's specifics cannot be covered in the main article.  If you do want individual pages, then the main 2024 debates page should be deleted and 2024_United_States_presidential_election#2024_presidential_debates be the parent.  Reywas92 Talk 20:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media , Television , Events ,  and Georgia (U.S. state) .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 01:27, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates ; I correctly merged and redirected this article before when elijahpepe created it the first time due to a lack of reasoning on his side why this split is necessary, as we are nowhere close to having size concerns on the main article.  As it was before and is now, two reports of roughly the same length are being collaborated on and with different information, which is not great.  We should adhere to guidelines on splitting and breaking or very highly reported news such that we should initially develop it in a section (and as Reywas92 said, was done for every other presidential debate article and never split) and after a few days should then discuss on the talk page to gain consensus on if a split is necessary, which I don't foresee it to be.  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete/Redirect/Speedy merge to 2024 United States presidential debates .  We don't need a standalone article for this debate; everything in this article can be easily be covered in the 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) section.  Some1 ( talk ) 02:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Noting here that the June 2024 United States presidential debate is being covered in-depth at 2024 United States presidential debates#June 27 presidential debate (Atlanta) .  The article that's up for deletion right now is a redundant content fork that is not as comprehensive as the parent article.  Some1 ( talk ) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to 2024 United States presidential debates .  There is no precedent for splitting up general election debates into separate articles.  I looked at the United States presidential debates template (apologies, I'm not sure how to add a link here without linking the actual template) and every single debate year just has one article; there are no separate articles for each debate held (aside from this one).  David O. Johnson ( talk ) 05:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge There is no precedent for debates to have their own pages.  No size concerns exist on the main page.  Some existing content can be easily moved over to the main page.  BootsED ( talk ) 05:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment — The comments stating there is no precedent have not addressed any substance about this article.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] They don't have to address the substance.  Whatever substance the article has can go on the main page just fine.  Even if there are GNG sources, per WP:NOPAGE we can still consolidate them in a larger contextual article.  You need to propose a properly-performed split when warranted, not just create a duplicative/overlapping page.  Reywas92 Talk 23:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge and delete this .  This should never have been created.  The clear message from the previous AfD should have been accepted and respected.  -- Valjean ( talk ) ( PING me ) 05:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  While the suggestion to merge to 2024 United States presidential debates is reasonable, this particular debate really stands out and has a very significant coverage; I think it certainly passes WP:GNG.  It is quite possible (and I hope) that Joe Biden will withdraw from the elections after such debates in favor of a younger colleague.  Otherwise, he will lose these elections, and the consequences for the world will be enormous.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] To correct the record, there is no indication Biden will not withdraw.  This occurred twelve years ago when Biden was vice president.  There is no replacement for Biden, and his withdrawal would alter the chances of Democrats winning from where they are now to zero.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, there is no such indications at the moment.  Speaking on the rest, many politicians and experts say the opposite [9] , [10] , [11] , [12] , which creates the controversy and makes this page worthy of the existence.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Again, whether or not this page passes the GNG does not necessarily determine if it should stay or not; this page was mostly split from the 2024 United States presidential debates article without good reason; there were and are no size concerns for the main article so there was no need for a split, even if the new article happens to be notable enough to stand alone; both articles on this topic (the section of the 2024 debates article and this article) are roughly the same length, and as most collaboration is happening now on the main article, we shouldn't have two different reports on this debate be developing.  To centralize work on this and to adhere to WP:NOPAGE , we should have it all be in this one section for now and then see, if size concerns arise, if it should be its own article through a proper discussion.  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 23:43, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The guidance at WP:SIZERULE is not an end all for pages.  For example, Criminal law in the Taney Court is 2,452 words, yet I doubt you would be able to raise an AfD against it.  The concerns about converging articles are legitimate, but not a reason to delete; this was the subject of a lengthy discussion on The New York Times , where the Online platforms section was split into Online platforms of The New York Times at 2,514 words even as I said that the content there needed to be expanded more before a split.  The solution seems to be to condense information about the debate in the article with the larger scope and expand this one.  At 1,422 words, this article is not there yet, but as I said above, a significant amount of coverage has been ignored to create an article skeleton that works to gather information.  Debates have garnered coverage before, but this is an unprecedented circumstance where there is now a consequence of a debate: discussions of Biden's withdrawal that do not appear to be in jest.  I do not see how that does not warrant an article in some form.  The article about the 2024 presidential debates has its scope; it is not an article about this event, which including the volume of information that is out there about this debate would create.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I didn't say the sizerule is the solution every single time, but with this case it certainly is.  You don't get to own the article and create a separate one all by yourself just because you think there should be one, we should have actual consensus on the talk page first and a good reason to do so (usually size concerns but not always), which we don't have.  We also have never made a separate article for any other presidential debate, so you have to give a good reason why this one should break precedent and be so more special than any other debate.  I'm aware of the past ownership problems and premature separate article creations in the past you've had, and I think for now it would be best for you and all of us if you just let this topic develop in the section like it has been doing.  We can see  later on if you get to claim creation of a separate article; please read WP:NOPAGE and WP:DELAY .  I'm not saying every short article that is somewhat related to a more broad article should be merged there, of course not, but rather that splits should not be made without good reason and size concerns just "because I think there should be a separate article".  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 00:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I provided reasoning above.  The calls to withdraw themselves already make this a unique debate, but we don't have an article on Obama's first debate in 2012.  elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So because there are some "calls to withdrawal" (which are already covered in the main article ), you believe that warrants a separate article for the debate?  Some1 ( talk ) 00:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] As currently written, this is just a content fork.  But perhaps it should be only briefly summarized on page 2024 United States presidential debates , and this page be kept as a valid sub-page.  Note that the issue has become the matter of poling already, showing that possible replacements would do only 1% worse than Biden, but they may have a higher potential among undecided voters [13] .  Some discuss if Joe Biden has a serious mental/health problem [14] , [15] .  My very best wishes ( talk ) 21:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Whether Biden will withdraw or not is WP:CRYSTAL , but the calls to withdrawal themselves, and more generally the impact of the debate, makes it more than pass WP:GNG on its own.  While precedent is good, it isn't necessarily an argument if there wasn't a higher level of consensus, and individual debates might not all have the same level of coverage and notability.  Furthermore, even if the page isn't yet large enough for WP:SIZERULE to be an issue, it might make it harder to have an in-depth coverage of all debates at once.  Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs ) 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Speedy merge to 2020 United States presidential debates per above arguments/comments, particularly those of Reywas92, Flemmish Nietzsche, and David O. Johnson.  A. Randomdude0000 ( talk ) 01:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  The reaction to the first debate is notable and clearly more notable than other debates.  Several editorial boards have called for President Biden to end his campaign as a result of the debate, which certainly passes WP:GNG .  Existing coverage on 2024 United States presidential debates is long enough for its own article.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 03:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge or redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates , depending on whether there's anything of value that isn't duplicated.  This is not a discussion about whether the subject is notable or passes GNG, it's about whether it should exist independently of the target article.  There's hardly any useful information in this article that isn't in the target.  The big ugly alien ( talk ) 04:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep at this point its section in 2024 United States presidential debates is getting very long, and this debate is exceptionally newsworthy compared to other presidential debates, so precedent arguments don't apply.  — Ashley Y 09:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The answer to that is to delete the WP:RECENTISM .  Not to create a content fork.  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, the content fork should be fixed.  But it can be fixed by moving some content from page 2024 United States presidential debates to this page, and by leaving only a brief summary on page 2024 United States presidential debates.  That would be optimal for readability.  That's why we have sub-pages.  This is the argument.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Exactly this.  Leaving aside the present content, this page should exist, given the salience of the event.  — Ashley Y 21:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, sure.  This is now a HUGE story, basically a crisis [16] , with enormous political consequences.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 15:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes, it's a "HUGE" story, but that doesn't change the fact that we don't need a separate article.  There still are not any size concerns or any good reason for a content fork, which may change if Biden does indeed cancel his reelection bid, but for now there is not as it is still just calls for him to step down and reactions to the debate, which do not warrant a separate article even if you think it is a "crisis".  Even if there should be a separate article at some point due to the notability of this debate, this article creation and content fork was premature and has unsuccessfully tried to put the majority of content on the debate in this article, while currently most is in the main article, which most people seem to be fine with.  Simply closing this debate as keep would actually be worse if it was clear it should be its own article, as the AfD result being a keep doesn't automatically mean we have consensus to move all the content over to this page and summarize it in the main article, and having the share of content between the two pages in limbo as it is now would probably be the worst outcome.  if you really think we should have a separate article, we should discuss it on the talk page of the 2024 debates article after this debate is closed and all content here is merged to the main article, which is what should have been done originally.  Flemmish Nietzsche ( talk ) 15:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It does not matter if he withdraws from the race or not.  This is simply a highly notable political event that goes far beyond just a presidential debate !  It therefore deserves a separate page.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 16:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Once again, I agree this is a content fork right now.  I just think a split would be reasonable in this case to eliminate the content fork.  My very best wishes ( talk ) 17:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete unnecessary content fork created due to WP:RECENTISM .  This debate will fade from memory in 10 days, let alone ten years .  – Muboshgu ( talk ) 23:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge per above votes.  This really should have been put on the talk page first, otherwise I would be more neutral.  WP:BOLD has it's limits and consensus should be respected with past AfD decisions.  Swordman97 talk to me 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge ; the 2020 United States presidential debates page manages to successfully cover all three debates that occurred that year.  I don’t see any reason why as to why this can’t be done for the 2024 debates.  -- WellThisIs TheReaper Grim 09:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete and merge into main debate article.  If Something Happens (like Biden dropping out) it might be worth spinning this off into its own article.  Right now it's just unnecessary, and it seems like we're getting into some recentism with an additional article.  Carlp941 ( talk ) 17:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review ).  No further edits should be made to this page.

Discussion outcome: merge