203:
dig up a dozen or so more names that have been meaninglessly thrown out there), only a few actually have any chance of being chosen, and of course Mr. Romney could decide on someone else entirely. A few of these can be disqualified by common sense (Trump, Bachmann), and many have vehemently denied any interest in the spot or already refused a theoretical offer (Daniels, Haley, Jindal, Rice, several others). Of course, they've all claimed they weren't interested and you could say things can change, but it's quite clear that many of these do not belong. Even with a few likely short-listers, we simply do not need a separate article listing these names.
596:, 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, Knowledge 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.
573:- A purely crystal ball exercise. There is no such thing as a 'Vice Presidential candidate" in the same way that there are Presidential candidates — in practice a Vice Presidential nominee is named by the Presidential nominee and given a pro forma ratification by the party's nominating convention. The universal set of such potential "Vice Presidential prospects" includes the entire registered list of the party in question's members. An article accumulating media speculation is inherently unencyclopedic.
340:. There is some crystal-ballery involved in this subject, but on the other hand the speculation itself is likely to be notable for the next few months. I would support keeping this article only if standards were instituted to indicate who is eligible to be listed (i.e. an individual must have been cited as a potential VP candidate by a certain number of independent reliable sources within a certain time period). --
653:
made several of the most critical and controversial decisions ever made by a US President (in particular, annexing Texas and using nuclear weapons on Japan). Those choices of VP have been closely examined, and having a contemporaneous account of who else was considered is a useful historical document.
1066:
Really? The Romney campaign article is not very long at all and has plenty of space for his VP shortlist. The only reason it's large is the 300+ freaking endorsements and their sources, which need to be split pretty soon. Of course it derives from the Romney campaign; were
Santorum the nominee, there
711:
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
355:
Obviously the topic is notable, and of interest to lots of people. The gallery of pictures is probably not needed, but if a reliable news source says someone might be picked then that should be good enough to include. The lede should clearly state which are, by consensus of serious sources, the most
202:
about this matter. The vice-presidential nominee will be chosen by Mitt Romney in August, and speculation by talking heads being paid to make up articles does not mean that a
Knowledge article should be devoted to their prognostication. Of the twenty-three names on this list (and surely someone could
1029:
with and redirect as JayJasper has suggested. Sure, there are reliable sources and plenty of scattered coverage, but it's not substantive enough to warrant a separate article. As is pointed out above, there isn't even a formal process of picking vice presidential candidates, since they come coupled
844:
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
764:
in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article currently just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that matters is Romney's and he ain't talking. Some of the entries in the current article
652:
In most cases, even actual elected vice-presidents don't have any long-lasting significance. Only nine became president by succession, and all those who became president by election were major political figures and likely candidates anyway. But the ones that did become president by succession have
622:
be picked to be nominee? Not all all. Looking back to 2008 (and its article), did Sarah Palin's candidacy have "long lasting significance"? Without a doubt. But did the random guesses about other prominent politicians and
Republican figures have any? No way. Although Mr. Romney's final decision is
494:
actually have any serious need to consult ever again (except perhaps for a quick, transient giggle at how wrong the majority of the "experts" are going to turn out to have been — but that's not the job of an encyclopedia.) Five hundred years from now, when you and I are reincarnated as academics
247:
On some topics, even speculation is notable. This is one of them--as the sources show. The nom thinks some are unlikely, but that's his private political judgment. If there are good sources showing comment on them in RSs, that's what we go by. The nom's speculations are OR--not so the article.
667:
Again, there is a huge difference between "As the presidential nominee, I actually considered these VP possibilities" and "I'm a media talking head and I think this senator and this governor and this also-ran would be a possible choice." I'm not sure how your tangential example is relevant,
765:
are downright daft and show a complete lack of understanding of current
American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: the chance that Romney could pick Rand Paul or Rudy Giuliani is zero, and the chance he could pick Sarah Palin or Donald Trump is less than zero.
875:
Reliably sourced speculation is still reliably sourced. Why purge something that receives significant coverage? We can all agree that the page needs to be renamed but no attempt is being made to claim these are bona fide candidates, just that they receive notable speculation.
230:, and readers are already more than able to seek out information on the potential candidates since virtually all of them already have their own Knowledge articles anyway — but there's no place or need on Knowledge for an article about the advance speculation itself.
551:, but it doesn't belong here: it's a current event whose article only has value until the Republican convention actually happens in just a few months, and then will never have any real point or purpose to it ever again. It's not something that belongs in an
376:
Being interesting is not qualification for inclusion, and those interested could also use an expanded section of the main article. Inclusion of anything anyone in the news says just because it's from a reliable source isn't a very good model for
Knowledge.
167:
1030:
with their respective presidential candidates. An article like this, at least at present, cannot really blossom into anything substantive. Such a discussion of Romney's potential picks can easily fit within his presidential campaign article.
268:
I would be glad to provide sources why many of these people are NOT going to the nominee; it is not just OR. A Knowledge article is not the place to show this speculation, even that that shows the merits and dismerits of the
707:- 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
95:
90:
99:
82:
161:
414:
799:
Speculation over who Romney will pick as VP is given lots of coverage in many sources; however, "candidates" seems an improper term given that one doesn't actually put together a campaign for the job.
735:
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
1012:: Speculation that is interesting but not notable in the sense that it should have its own page... let's keep this stuff over at the page about Mitt Romney's election as per with JayJasper said.
207:
has a short section about the VP pick that could be expanded with the likely possibilities. But a collection of unsubstantiated hypothetical speculation does not warrant a full article here.
618:
Is the Vice-Presidential nominee for the
Republican Party a "highly notable", "significant impact", "lasting" topic? Absolutely. Is the list of people that pundits and journalists speculate
86:
458:
127:
305:, and that should be removed as well. Keep the names of the shortlisted contenders in the main campaign article, but such a long list and an image gallery are simply superfluous.
850:
846:
280:
78:
70:
634:
Only one person on this list will actually become the nominee; the other two dozen or so will not. What's going to be the long-lasting significance of a list of people who
436:
182:
946:
would be a far more prudent move than outright deletion, given the subject's significant coverage in reliable independent sources and relevance to the campaign.--
149:
122:
690:
Although I voted Keep, the Delete advocates are making a very good case. Still I will stick with Keep since the topic is of much more than average importance.
482:. The problem is that the moment Romney actually announces his actual pick, a list of everybody who any media pundit on earth ever published a guess that he
1117:
1103:
1089:
1073:
1059:
1041:
1021:
997:
980:
955:
934:
913:
885:
866:
826:
807:
791:
774:
752:
727:
699:
674:
662:
647:
629:
609:
582:
564:
472:
450:
428:
403:
383:
365:
347:
324:
292:
259:
239:
213:
64:
143:
898:
968:
943:
815:
204:
139:
189:
1050:
There is not enough space for this material on that particular page. Plus, the speculation here does not derive from the Romney campaign.--
993:
853:
equivalents of this article should also be considered delete-worthy for the same reasons. Let's agree to leave the crystal-balling to
845:
National
Convention who will (presumably) officially nominate the selection. What the media think is ultimately irrelevant. Both the
155:
989:
17:
1099:
1055:
901:
881:
723:
597:
605:
302:
1142:
40:
862:
400:
344:
226:. When Romney actually announces his chosen running mate, we'll be more than able to cover that properly with
1017:
770:
315:
Your misuse of otherstuff is amusing. Apparently no one even thought to nominate it for deletion in 2008.--
1095:
1051:
930:
877:
854:
719:
739:)- is notable. This subject is given significant coverage in reliable independent sources, and thus meet
1138:
1080:
Given that Romney is now presumptive nominee, it makes sense that the VP choice be associated with him.
1013:
922:
601:
199:
36:
593:
743:. However, a rename to "Vice presidential prospects" should be considered, per Carrite's comments.--
951:
858:
748:
397:
341:
175:
1109:
1081:
972:
766:
547:
running mates disappears forever. Which is why this kind of thing certainly might be useful on
1108:
Yes, but you do see the connection between the VP choices and the Romney campaign, don't you?
926:
837:
787:
643:
578:
560:
532:
468:
446:
424:
235:
223:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1137:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
495:
studying the 2012 US presidential election, we're certainly going to need to know who Romney
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1113:
1085:
1036:
976:
695:
658:
487:
361:
1094:
No. The list does not derive from the Romney campaign, it derives from news publications.--
971:. The topic hardly merits a page in its own right, but should get a mention of some sort.
908:
708:
964:
947:
744:
55:
52:. A majority thinks the article is not needed, but we have no consensus for deletion.
1068:
740:
736:
669:
624:
378:
317:
306:
285:
255:
208:
527:
articles which serve only to document third parties' advance speculation about what
988:. It's a notable current event, even though Barack Obama will probably win anyway.
841:
783:
639:
574:
556:
464:
442:
420:
231:
227:
897:
Speculation and a picture gallery. Also, this article is sufficient for the topic
668:
especially because those were when VP was a contested position at the convention.
116:
1031:
761:
691:
654:
357:
903:
548:
503:
going to have any serious need to investigate who the media pundits were
250:
1067:
would be a different set of possibilities on who complements his style.
198:
There is no reason to have an article that relays media speculation and
356:
likely. If readers want to go beyond that, that is their choice.
1131:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
782:
About as utile as a Tarot deck - and below
Crystal ball level.
623:
surely "a precedent or catalyst", the speculation on it is not.
592:- Its a highly notable, "significant impact," "lasting" topic,
718:
the subject receives extensive coverage in reliable sources.--
415:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
283:(created February 2008!) shows this article should exist.--
112:
108:
104:
174:
486:
pick becomes a moot and unencyclopedic compendium of
459:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
281:
Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2008
79:
Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
71:
Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
840:when I first came across it a number of days ago.
600:is not sufficient reason for requesting deletion.
531:happen in a future political event fall afoul of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1145:). No further edits should be made to this page.
942:If this is not kept, merging and redirecting to
396:I agree. Get rid of the gallery of pictures. --
814:Also, JayJasper's suggestion of merging into
523:announced. Which is why I still believe that
437:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
188:
8:
967:said, this page would be better merged with
457:Note: This debate has been included in the
435:Note: This debate has been included in the
413:Note: This debate has been included in the
836:The article struck me as a likely case of
456:
434:
412:
899:United_States_presidential_election,_2012
539:announced, the "encyclopedic" value of a
535:— because as soon as his running mate is
969:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
944:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
816:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
205:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
638:get picked as the nominee in the end?
7:
279:: Remove unsourced speculation but
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
818:seems like a reasonable idea.
1:
760:With rare exceptions (e.g.
1162:
990:The Mysterious El Willstro
1134:Please do not modify it.
1118:04:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
998:21:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
712:the Romney 2012 article.
65:05:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
1104:16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1090:10:40, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1074:15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1060:07:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1042:01:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
1022:20:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
981:10:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
956:19:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
935:18:10, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
914:16:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
886:18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
867:16:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
827:07:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
808:11:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
792:01:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
775:00:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
753:20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
728:20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
700:20:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
675:15:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
663:21:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
648:23:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
630:20:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
610:18:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
583:17:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
565:14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
473:00:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
451:00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
429:00:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
404:00:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
384:02:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
366:00:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
348:23:50, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
325:21:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
293:23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
260:22:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
240:18:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
214:17:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
1004:Break for readability
923:User talk:Canuckian89
499:picked — but we're
303:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
598:WP:I don't like it
511:pick three months
48:The result was
1096:William S. Saturn
1052:William S. Saturn
878:William S. Saturn
824:
805:
720:William S. Saturn
490:that nobody will
475:
462:
453:
440:
431:
418:
323:
291:
200:WP:CRYSTALBALLing
63:
1153:
1136:
1071:
1039:
1034:
911:
906:
842:Reliably sourced
825:
823:
822:
806:
804:
803:
672:
627:
602:Thomas Paine1776
463:
441:
419:
381:
322:
309:
290:
228:reliable sources
211:
193:
192:
178:
130:
120:
102:
62:
60:
53:
34:
1161:
1160:
1156:
1155:
1154:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1143:deletion review
1132:
1069:
1037:
1032:
1006:
909:
904:
851:2008 Democratic
847:2008 Republican
820:
819:
801:
800:
670:
655:Richard Gadsden
625:
379:
307:
224:crystal balling
209:
135:
126:
93:
77:
74:
56:
54:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1147:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1124:
1123:
1122:
1121:
1120:
1078:
1077:
1076:
1045:
1044:
1024:
1005:
1002:
1001:
1000:
983:
958:
937:
916:
891:
890:
889:
888:
870:
869:
859:Sgt. R.K. Blue
830:
829:
811:
810:
794:
777:
755:
730:
713:
702:
684:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
632:
613:
612:
586:
585:
477:
476:
454:
432:
409:
408:
407:
406:
398:Metropolitan90
391:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
369:
368:
350:
342:Metropolitan90
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
296:
295:
273:
272:
271:
270:
263:
262:
242:
196:
195:
132:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1158:
1146:
1144:
1140:
1135:
1129:
1119:
1115:
1111:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1083:
1079:
1075:
1072:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1057:
1053:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1040:
1035:
1028:
1025:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:FronkTheFrank
1011:
1008:
1007:
1003:
999:
995:
991:
987:
984:
982:
978:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
957:
953:
949:
945:
941:
938:
936:
932:
928:
924:
920:
917:
915:
912:
907:
902:
900:
896:
893:
892:
887:
883:
879:
874:
873:
872:
871:
868:
864:
860:
856:
852:
848:
843:
839:
835:
832:
831:
828:
817:
813:
812:
809:
798:
795:
793:
789:
785:
781:
778:
776:
772:
768:
767:Wasted Time R
763:
759:
756:
754:
750:
746:
742:
738:
734:
731:
729:
725:
721:
717:
714:
710:
706:
703:
701:
697:
693:
689:
686:
685:
676:
673:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
651:
650:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
631:
628:
621:
617:
616:
615:
614:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
594:WP:Notability
591:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
569:
568:
567:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
502:
498:
493:
489:
485:
481:
474:
470:
466:
460:
455:
452:
448:
444:
438:
433:
430:
426:
422:
416:
411:
410:
405:
402:
399:
395:
394:
393:
392:
385:
382:
375:
374:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
363:
359:
354:
351:
349:
346:
343:
339:
336:
335:
326:
320:
319:
314:
313:
312:
311:
310:
304:
300:
299:
298:
297:
294:
288:
287:
282:
278:
275:
274:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
252:
246:
243:
241:
237:
233:
229:
225:
221:
218:
217:
216:
215:
212:
206:
201:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
61:
59:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1133:
1130:
1026:
1009:
985:
960:
939:
918:
894:
833:
796:
779:
757:
732:
715:
704:
687:
635:
619:
589:
570:
553:encyclopedia
552:
544:
540:
536:
528:
524:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
491:
483:
479:
478:
352:
337:
316:
284:
276:
249:
244:
219:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
57:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
762:Mike Gravel
709:synthesized
541:speculative
269:candidates.
162:free images
838:WP:CRYSTAL
533:WP:NOTNEWS
58:Sandstein
1139:talk page
965:JayJasper
948:JayJasper
797:Weak keep
745:JayJasper
545:potential
519:pick was
488:WP:TRIVIA
465:• Gene93k
443:• Gene93k
421:• Gene93k
37:talk page
1141:or in a
1070:Reywas92
671:Reywas92
626:Reywas92
549:Wikinews
543:list of
537:actually
521:actually
507:that he
505:guessing
497:actually
380:Reywas92
318:Milowent
308:Reywas92
286:Milowent
210:Reywas92
123:View log
39:or in a
940:Comment
895:Delete:
834:Delete:
784:Collect
688:Comment
640:Bearcat
575:Carrite
557:Bearcat
480:Comment
338:Comment
232:Bearcat
168:WP refs
156:scholar
96:protect
91:history
1110:EEL123
1082:EEL123
1010:Delete
973:EEL123
961:Delete
855:Sabato
821:Canuck
802:Canuck
780:Delete
758:Delete
741:WP:GNG
705:Delete
692:Borock
636:didn't
571:Delete
517:actual
513:before
401:(talk)
358:Borock
345:(talk)
220:Delete
140:Google
100:delete
1027:Merge
620:could
529:might
509:might
484:might
256:talk
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
1114:talk
1100:talk
1086:talk
1056:talk
1018:talk
994:talk
986:Keep
977:talk
952:talk
931:talk
927:Gage
921:Per
919:Keep
882:talk
863:talk
849:and
788:talk
771:talk
749:talk
733:Keep
724:talk
716:Keep
696:talk
659:talk
644:talk
606:talk
590:Keep
579:talk
561:talk
515:his
492:ever
469:talk
447:talk
425:talk
362:talk
353:Keep
301:Um,
277:Keep
245:Keep
236:talk
176:FENS
150:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
1038:meh
1033:Tim
963:As
910:rld
857:. —
525:all
501:not
251:DGG
222:as
190:TWL
125:•
121:– (
1116:)
1102:)
1088:)
1058:)
1020:)
996:)
979:)
954:)
933:)
925:.
905:Wo
884:)
876:--
865:)
790:)
773:)
751:)
737:OR
726:)
698:)
661:)
646:)
608:)
581:)
563:)
555:.
471:)
461:.
449:)
439:.
427:)
417:.
364:)
321:•
289:•
258:)
238:)
170:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
1112:(
1098:(
1084:(
1054:(
1016:(
992:(
975:(
950:(
929:(
880:(
861:(
786:(
769:(
747:(
722:(
694:(
657:(
642:(
604:(
577:(
559:(
467:(
445:(
423:(
360:(
254:(
234:(
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.