491:
deliberately trying to influence the selection process or public opinion about the campaign, or even the result of campaign leaks to test the waters with various names (all of which I am confident could ultimately be explained and sourced). The very act of discussing the VP selection by these media outlets inevitably influences the selection and reaction to it and so is part of the history of the election.
412:, a race does not exist for the vice president of the United States. There's isn't really much campaigning and so forth for the job. The presidential nominee is the one who decides to become his vice presidential running mate. This article is just media speculation on who Romney might select for vice president or politicians stating they may be interested if picked. That's not what
619:
put in the article show a complete lack of understanding of
American politics on the part of the WP editors involved: for example, there was never even a remote chance that Romney would pick Rand Paul or Nikki Haley or Donald Trump (!). So both the rationale for the article (there are candidates) and the content of the article (who the candidates were) are completely off-base.
472:
sentence or two. The sections on the campaign selection process and on the announcement should definitely stay (in whichever article these end up) and perhaps be expanded, as that's the real substance of the topic. If kept separately, this should also be renamed per my comment above as the current title is an inaccurate description.
221:, not encyclopedic material. Besides my opposition to the inclusion of the meaningless prognostications of the media's talking heads—several of these "candidates" had clearly declined interest months before the announcement, and others (Trump) are nonsense—there is no need for a separate article for this information.
618:
in 1972), people do not "run" for the vice presidential nomination and thus are not "candidates". The article just collects a lot of media speculation, all of which is irrelevant since the only view that mattered was Romney's and he only seriously considered a handful of people. Some of the entries
425:
I think your problem is purely with the relationship of the title to the material, and the article title is poorly chosen and inaccurate. The content itself is not original research because it is merely reporting on verifiable reports on and media commentary about Romney's choice for a running mate,
554:
The problem I have with this article is that it confuses announced, rumored, and never-serious candidates. It also confuses candidacy to be Romney's VP-candidate with candidacy in the presidential election. A bit about vice-president considerations under the 2012 presidential election/campaign
471:
section into a prose paragraph or two. Cataloging every name ever thrown out there is excessive and unnecessary, let alone expanding it into a picture gallery. Instead, the main names considered should be discussed with attribution, and maybe a "other possibilities considered were X, Y, and Z"
257:
One expects a "candidate" to have been nominated for an office, or to actively seek it. The crystal-ball media speculation that Romney might pick one of these names does not constitute their candidacy. Very few persons have actually ever announced that they want to be picked as vice president.
490:
One further observation: major media outlets are themselves major players in U.S. presidential campaigns, particularly since much of the "speculation" they are reporting on is not simply a trivial game of trying to guess an outcome, but instead made by pundits or other politicians who are
84:
458:
is also inapplicable because this isn't unverifiable
Knowledge editor speculation, but rather in the vein of "redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field..." That said, this probably could be
216:
Now that the election is over, this article is truly unnecessary. The people listed in the article were never "candidates" in any way, but rather prominent
Republicans whose names were mentioned by media pundits. The article is just what the media saw in their
185:
79:
391:
and the fact the the key potential candidates can be merged, this is just media speculation of prominent politicians, not necessarily those actually considered by Mr. Romney. His considerations are best on his campaign article.
111:
106:
115:
98:
179:
280:
145:
416:. If there was actual campaigning for the job, it's a clear keep of course, but there wasn't as far as we know, if there was that's a whole different news story (and article) of course.
102:
320:
642:
628:
604:
585:
564:
543:
504:
485:
447:
420:
398:
378:
369:
332:
312:
292:
271:
249:
231:
63:
454:
I disagree that this ceases to be of encyclopedic value now that the election is over, because a major party candidate's campaign decisions are of lasting historical importance.
138:
468:
94:
69:
523:. Per Postdlf's arguments, the content has lasting encyclopedic value, but probably not so much as to justify an entire article (and certainly not a picture gallery!).
300:
200:
167:
240:- It's a notable topic, researched, cited. Concerns about speculation now are moot. Whether or not vice presidents "run" is irrelevant (Constitution says yes).
225:
could easily be expanded with prose with what information isn't already there, as well as a few shortlisted candidates; a photo gallery is unnecessary.
161:
431:
362:
516:
464:
222:
157:
51:
207:
560:
343:
A list of people who were considered to be potential candidates is an instructive thing to have and it belongs on an encyclopedia.
173:
17:
539:
556:
351:
661:
40:
430:
this were to continue to exist as a separate article that issue would be cured by retitling to something like
624:
344:
657:
455:
374:
If it wasn't all media based and there was campaigning for the position, yes but its not the case here.
218:
36:
591:
579:
527:
245:
193:
620:
535:
555:
articles would suffice. This article is more rumor than fact, and not encyclopedia by a stretch.
499:
480:
442:
388:
328:
308:
288:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
656:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
595:
384:
267:
259:
574:
241:
85:
Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012 (2nd nomination)
599:
531:
413:
393:
226:
520:
493:
474:
436:
409:
324:
304:
284:
57:
132:
637:
615:
417:
375:
263:
80:
Articles for deletion/Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
223:
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection
52:
Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012#Vice-presidential selection
650:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
432:
Selection of
Republican Party vice presidential candidate, 2012
281:
list of United States of
America-related deletion discussions
408:
Edison is right on here. This is the exact definition of
128:
124:
120:
192:
572:
per existence of other articles and per those above.
321:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
95:
Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
70:
Republican Party vice presidential candidates, 2012
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
664:). No further edits should be made to this page.
301:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
206:
8:
319:Note: This debate has been included in the
299:Note: This debate has been included in the
279:Note: This debate has been included in the
318:
298:
278:
517:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
465:Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012
77:
7:
76:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
614:. With rare exceptions (e.g.
544:17:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
505:18:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
486:18:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
448:18:03, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
421:01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
379:01:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
370:01:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
333:16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
313:16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
293:16:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
272:21:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
250:02:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
232:02:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
643:01:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
629:00:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
605:00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
586:22:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
565:15:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
399:00:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
64:04:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
681:
467:, by condensing the whole
262:was one who did, in 1972.
653:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
636:. - Per Wasted Time R.
557:Truth or consequences-2
590:Which other articles?
75:AfDs for this article:
414:Knowledge is used for
406:Very Strong Delete
48:The result was
547:
530:comment added by
469:media speculation
410:original research
368:
335:
315:
295:
672:
655:
640:
602:
582:
577:
546:
524:
396:
365:
360:
358:
349:
260:Endicott Peabody
229:
211:
210:
196:
148:
136:
118:
60:
34:
680:
679:
675:
674:
673:
671:
670:
669:
668:
662:deletion review
651:
638:
600:
580:
575:
525:
519:as detailed by
394:
363:
352:
345:
227:
153:
144:
109:
93:
90:
73:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
678:
676:
667:
666:
646:
645:
631:
609:
608:
607:
567:
510:
509:
508:
507:
456:WP:CRYSTALBALL
452:
451:
450:
403:
402:
401:
381:
337:
336:
316:
296:
275:
274:
252:
219:WP:CRYSTALBALL
214:
213:
150:
89:
88:
87:
82:
74:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
677:
665:
663:
659:
654:
648:
647:
644:
641:
635:
632:
630:
626:
622:
621:Wasted Time R
617:
613:
610:
606:
603:
597:
593:
592:WP:OTHERSTUFF
589:
588:
587:
584:
583:
578:
571:
568:
566:
562:
558:
553:
550:
549:
548:
545:
541:
537:
533:
529:
522:
518:
514:
506:
502:
501:
496:
495:
489:
488:
487:
483:
482:
477:
476:
470:
466:
462:
457:
453:
449:
445:
444:
439:
438:
433:
429:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
411:
407:
404:
400:
397:
390:
386:
382:
380:
377:
373:
372:
371:
366:
359:
357:
356:
350:
348:
342:
339:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
277:
276:
273:
269:
265:
261:
256:
253:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
235:
234:
233:
230:
224:
220:
209:
205:
202:
199:
195:
191:
187:
184:
181:
178:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
159:
156:
155:Find sources:
151:
147:
143:
140:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
86:
83:
81:
78:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
61:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
652:
649:
633:
611:
573:
569:
551:
526:— Preceding
521:User:Postdlf
512:
511:
498:
492:
479:
473:
460:
441:
435:
427:
405:
354:
353:
346:
340:
254:
237:
215:
203:
197:
189:
182:
176:
170:
164:
154:
141:
56:
49:
47:
31:
28:
616:Mike Gravel
180:free images
389:WP:UNENCYC
242:Shadowjams
658:talk page
596:WP:PERNOM
385:WP:USEFUL
355:Strikeout
347:Automatic
325:• Gene93k
305:• Gene93k
285:• Gene93k
50:merge to
37:talk page
660:or in a
601:Reywas92
540:contribs
532:Ddcm8991
528:unsigned
395:Reywas92
383:Besides
364:Evidence
228:Reywas92
139:View log
39:or in a
494:postdlf
475:postdlf
437:postdlf
186:WP refs
174:scholar
112:protect
107:history
59:MBisanz
639:GabeMc
634:Delete
612:Delete
552:Delete
418:Secret
376:Secret
264:Edison
255:Delete
158:Google
116:delete
581:Mate1
576:Royal
513:Merge
463:d to
461:merge
201:JSTOR
162:books
146:Stats
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
625:talk
594:and
570:Keep
561:talk
536:talk
500:talk
481:talk
443:talk
387:and
341:Keep
329:talk
309:talk
289:talk
268:talk
246:talk
238:Keep
194:FENS
168:news
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
515:to
426:so
208:TWL
137:– (
627:)
598:.
563:)
542:)
538:•
503:)
484:)
446:)
434:.
428:if
331:)
323:.
311:)
303:.
291:)
283:.
270:)
248:)
188:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
55:.
623:(
559:(
534:(
497:(
478:(
440:(
367:)
361:(
327:(
307:(
287:(
266:(
258:(
244:(
212:)
204:·
198:·
190:·
183:·
177:·
171:·
165:·
160:(
152:(
149:)
142:·
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.