Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was redirect‎ to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw. Most of the Keep views focused on the amount of news coverage the topic received, and its political importance. Both are valid factors when determining journalistic importance, but not in establishing encyclopedic notability. Claiming notability comes from this being an unprecedented event is also not supported by our P&G.

Some participants called for waiting until November before we decide. Such an a posteriori determination of notability goes against our guidelines, as some here correctly noted. In the event that this topic gains notability in the future, nothing stops us from restoring the article from under the redirect. Discarding the !votes not based on P&G, we're left with a rough consensus to redirect.

There was a separate consensus since the AfD was opened to move the Calls for Biden to step aside section in both 2024 United States presidential election and 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries to Joe_Biden_2024_presidential_campaign, so I picked the latter as the target most likely to reflect the intention of the Redirect views. That shouldn't prevent any editor from selectively merging content to the two other articles (or to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign), or if consensus exists, changing the target of this redirect. Owen× ☎ 15:06, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not a notable topic. This is an extended news cycle. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM apply. It's also too likely to devolve into a WP:POVFORK. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. Even if Biden does eventually drop out, what use would the article be..? Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hard disagree. When was the last time we heard of an incumbent president being asked by members of his own party to relinquish the office? This is an important development not only for this election cycle, but for U.S. presidential history, holistically speaking. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not all trivia is notable. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This, by itself, isn't an encyclopedic topic. It's just one development in the 2024 United States presidential election. Presenting the material outside of a context like that is POVFORK-ish. XOR'easter (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Wait Currently, it is a really notable topic spiraling right now, once things drop, then discussion can be made on deleting this page. InterDoesWiki (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how notability works. It's either notable or it's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notablity is not static. Maurnxiao (talk) 17:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Subjects that are not notable can become notable, but things that are notable cannot become not notable. And This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then, since you want an answer, I'll say ● Keep: This is a very notable topic. InterDoesWiki (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, but I think that's where the problem lies. This topic obviously deserves some coverage on Wikipedia. The problem is that there is no clear answer of where. I think a discussion needs to be had. Seems like 2024 United States presidential debates or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign would make the most sense. But 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2024 United States presidential election or 2024 Democratic National Convention could also work too. The fractured coverage doesn't benefit our readers. (I was just going to redirect this boldly, but never got around to it.) Esolo5002 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC) Keep. Four days later and this story has not slowed down at all. This is getting notable international coverage as well [1], [2], [3]. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a problem. I'm voting to keep, partly because the information covered here is notable and not covered anywhere else and can't really be covered in the required detail anywhere else. Could a page be made for the first debate itself? MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy blank and redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, which already contains all that needs to be discussed on this topic. Wikipedia is not a source of breaking news and is poorly suited to be, because we're an encyclopedia, not a news blog. If history shows that this was so significant an aspect of this year's election that it needs to be discussed in a separate article, we can write that article at that time. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:37, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR as suggested in the comment above this one is the best possible outcome. Oaktree b (talk) 22:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside: per WP:NOTNEWS. This does not need its own article; it is best-suited as a section in the main election article. I don't think anything needs to be merged because, as said above, the main article already covers it well enough. C F A 💬 02:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTNEWS. The page on the 2024 United States presidential election can amply cover this debate re: Presdient Biden. TH1980 (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: per CFA comment. There is coverage but can be included in other articles.FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per the above. --MuZemike 13:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fait accompli, but I'd like to register my vote as keep anyway before it's deleted. It is very notable that 119 days before a US presidential election, many of the party are outright calling for an incumbent president to relinquish the nomination. To be honest, you could probably create a whole article for the first debate (where there normally isn't articles for individual debates) due to the notability of it and the polticial firestorm it has caused, much more than I would say any other televised presidential debate in US history. MarkiPoli (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Biden becomes the nominee, and wins re-election, would you still argue that calls for him to step aside were “notable” enough for an entire separate article? Or what if Biden does step down; wouldn’t it be weird to have an article about “calls for Biden to step down”, rather than a more broad article about him suspending his campaign altogether? A “notable” political firestorm in July, may not be notable at all in November. Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if he doesn't get replaced and goes on to the general, I'd argue it still is notable that so close to the election, after all primaries are done, that so many of the candidate's same party are calling for him to step down, has this ever happened before? If he does step down, this article is simply renamed to "Suspension of Joe Biden's 2024 presidential campaign". MarkiPoli (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with MarkiPoli Fodient (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't remember the Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape coming out in October 2016? Thank you for the demonstration of recency bias that underpins WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BLAR - Likewise agree with @Ivanvector. W9793 (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the 2024 American presidential election, which has a section on this topic. I have only skimmed the article in its current form, but it feels like using Wikipedia to influence outside events to me. Can we WP:SNOWPRO this one? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside per WP:NOTNEWS, in agreement with rationale put forth by several others above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe sheer number of reliable sources talking about it indicate that it is notable. It is more than just a single news cycle considering it has been a week and a half from the debate and it is still so prominently talked about. If it were just an extended news cycle, the publications about it would be diminishing, not growing. JMM12345 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The main article, "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign", already says "It has been suggested that this article should be split into multiple articles." So, a split into sub-articles is suggested to be necessary. And, this is definitely a sub-article of the article "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign". GoldWitness (talk) 03:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been suggested, but the current WP:CONSENSUS at that article’s talk page seems to be against splitting the article up. Prcc27 (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is substantially the same. Walsh90210 (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:LASTING Influential members of the president's party calling for him to step down after he has secured delegates is unprecedented, and will be discussed for decades, even if he doesn't step down. Tons of reliable sources. The article is too large to be part of another article.Fodient (talk) 10:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are people still talking about Calls for Donald Trump to suspend his 2016 United States presidential campaign after the Access Hollywood tape came out to the extent that it needs its own article? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Donald Trump wasn't the incumbent president with nearly 99% of the delegates to acquire his party's nomination.Fodient (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with the fact that calls for Donald Trump to drop out in 2016 are contained at Donald Trump Access Hollywood tape#Calls to drop campaign and the Trump 2016 article not a separate article? Much like calls for Biden to drop out should remain on the 2024 debate and Biden 2024 pages? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone should make the article. Just because an article doesn't exist for something that's kinda similar is not an argument that another article should not exist.Fodient (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 2016 articles show well how to handle a situation like this once we're past the burst of WP:RECENTISM that we are stuck right in the middle of in 2024. If Biden stays in, this will fade. If he doesn't, we can cross that bridge when we get to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Biden stays in or steps down this will remain notable and discussed for decades.Fodient (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think, due to recency bias, but calls for Trump to drop out in 2016 have failed the WP:10YT. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No recency bias here. A sitting president being called upon by prominent members of his own party as well as notable previous supporters, plus a senator, who is former VP nominee, is looking for other senators to join him in asking for the president to step down. This is something that will be discussed in history classes. Fodient (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt your WP:CRYSTAL ball works that well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the point is that its not "prominent" members of his party; it's people like talking head James Carville and fossil fuel lobbyist Tim Ryan, whose (moderate) importance in the party is well in the past. Even the sitting senator you reference (Mark Warner, who was not the VP nominee; that's Tim Kaine) has not called for Biden to drop out. The media has intentionally built this narrative with tiny strings of innuendo and false implication that fall apart under the slightest inspection. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
James Carville is a prominent Democrat political consultant, and any sitting member of congress that is a democrat is a prominent member of that party. You're right, I confused the VA senators. There are reliable sources to support Warner looking for other senators to ask Biden to step down, there are no reliable sources that state the media has intentionally built a narrative.Fodient (talk) 03:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough reporting and opinion writing about it is there. AltruisticHomoSapien (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out. A similar section already exists at 2024 United States presidential election#Calls for Biden to step aside, as well. It feels unnecessary to have three different articles about the same thing and it makes maintenance more difficult. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
● Wait because 2024 United States presidential debates#Calls for President Biden to drop out section was edited out of that article Lordofthefood1 (talk) 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are other articles to redirect it to: the debate article, List of Democrats who oppose Biden, or otherwise. No need to keep this article active much longer. Prcc27 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to the aforementioned sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep widely reported in the media and has a long-lasting impact. EpicAdventurer (talk) 05:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can we set an egg timer to revisit all of the American politics mumbo-jumbo on November 6, when we are (closer to) capable of being normal about it? jp×g 🗯️ 08:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. It's honestly more telling that no significant figures are listed here. If he doesn't drop, it's a who-cares list of has-beens and never-will-bes. A lot of these guys are speaking up because it's the only way anyone would ever see their name in the news! If he does drop, its a side note on the main article. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this can just be a section in the 2024 election article instead. Qutlooker (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is well sourced and the subject matter is very notable. I can't think of a more recent time in which this late into the primary/election cycle that there were growing calls for the presumptive nominee to withdraw from the race (a month shy from the nominating convention). Also gaining national and international coverage/attention. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally the fact that it is the sitting President and not just a presumptive nominee. The calls are big. SDudley (talk) 18:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is of public interest and has the potential for expansion. It can serve as a starting point for further research and development by the Wikipedia community. If the topic is genuinely interesting to the public, it deserves a place on the platform.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is an important moment of American electoral history and it's educational for future people who wanted to learn what happened during this period of time.
Mason54432 (talk) 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability of this event is very self-evident. Party leaders are strongly suggesting the sitting president sit out a second term, which is unprecedented in American history. We are entering the 2nd week of the controversy with no signs of letting up until the convention, which has historically met WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DEPTH criteria for headlining national news. Baldemoto (talk) 23:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TDKR Chicago 101, Fodient, MarkiPoli, JMM12345, GoldWitness and Baldemoto, all of whom make cogent, compelling arguments in favor of keeping this important article. In contrast, !votes promoting deletion seem weak, strained or simply lack supporting commentary. Jusdafax (talk) 23:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep I am leaning keep as this is well discussed by reliable sources and meets criteria for being a notable event, but the article itself isn't very long. Maybe merge into Health of Joe Biden or some other related article? cookie monster 755 00:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe a merge with Age and health concerns of Joe Biden and possibly 2024 United States presidential debates#Reception and aftermath might be warranted. It's reasonable to suggest that the concerns in the article has ultimately culminated in the controversy described in this article, meaning the article would fit neatly into this article's "background" section. The section on the aftermath of the debate linked above also holds very relevant information to this article. Merging both into this article could coalesce all relevant information regarding the concerns and controversies from 2020 to the present day into one article. Since "Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign" would not appropriately capture the breadth of such an article, the article could also be renamed something along the lines of "Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign controversy", "Joe Biden age/health controversy" "Joe Biden 2024 presidential debate controversy", or something along those lines. Baldemoto (talk) 01:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We have an article on Biden's age and health concerns? These should absolutely be in the same article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned by many already, this is unprecedented at least as modern U.S. presidential history goes. We can at least see how this develops until November, then revisit the topic of deletion? It is extremely notable, has extensive coverage, and is hardly an example of WP:RECENTISM or WP:NOTNEWS. We are not talking about some event that hit the tabloids, this is the President of the United States being asked to forfeit a race that he was slightly ahead in just mere months ago. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 01:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is clearly a notable topic, it's been continuously top of the news for almost two weeks now. —Ashley Y 03:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The presidential debate page is becoming too long, and this story has dominated the news cycle for long enough. Additionally, the story continues to expand with each day, with new calls to drop out. Ageofultron 04:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a highly relevant political issue with massive amounts of attention in the news. David A (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Keep - a campaign asking a sitting President to drop out of the race with multiple US House representatives and a US Senator behind should be considered significant enough for Wikipedia. This article is a bit light on context and supporting details, so at the bare minimum it needs to be expanded and rewritten. I think that Age and health concerns of Joe Biden could be merged into this article as well. Flangalanger (talk) 06:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Keep” and “merge” are not the same thing. Prcc27 (talk) 07:12, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article about a notable topic covered with good references. Bernardo Botto (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely important part of the 2024 election cycle that will 100% be relevant in 10 years time, no matter if he stays in or not. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 16:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it won’t. If he drops, the main article would be Joe Biden’s suspended 2024 United States presidential campaign if anything; people “calling” on him to drop out would be less relevant than the actual action of him dropping out. If he continues to be the nominee and even wins, nobody will care and an article would seem unnecessary. Same as when people called for Trump to drop out in 2016, but he ended up winning; we don’t have an article for that. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have the massive revolt against a sitting president after a primary season which he effortlessly won in 2016. Of course people were calling on Trump to drop out in 2016, he had a bunch of primary opponents and disapproval from past Republicans like the Bushes. The Biden situation is far different, significant, and has nearly no precedent- except for LBJ in 1968, which could easily use an article. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The creation of this is an act of the extraordinarily ill-informed, and a gaggle of "keep its notable!" votes miss the mark entirely. We should not create articles on a group of people who hold a singular, narrow opinion on a topic. Even if Biden were to withdraw from the race, an article on the people who said "drop out" is absurd. Non-news, non-encyclopedic, a myriad of wrong here. Zaathras (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really simply a "group of people" if that group includes several congresspeople, a senator, several Democratic donors (including one of the most prolific political donors in recent memory), the president's own aides, and, implicitly, the previous House speaker? One could argue that the article should be expanded to encompass more than simply the group of people in question, but I think calling such a large, sustained leadership push to oust the current president from the race "Non-news" or "ill-informed" is completely inappropriate. Baldemoto (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into the section on Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Obviously it should be covered, but this topic doesn't need its own page. Estreyeria (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if he doesn't drop out, this is an unprecedented open discussion to have ongoing about a presumptive nominee and sitting president. Plus as of only a few minutes ago, another three House Democrats have called upon him to drop out. This seems clearly notable. Cpotisch (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Davey2116 (talk) 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cpotisch. TheInevitables (talk) 03:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main article on the 2024 American presidential election, which has a section on this topic.Montgomery28 (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This is far from meeting the criteria for deletion, and it merits its own page. Large amount of media coverage and a critically important part of the election. Kentuckian |💬 04:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The topic will develop and events related to it will multiply. As Biden's age and health problems progress, so will more calls for him to step down. Such a situation with respect to the president and candidate for president of the United States has never happened before. Wikipek (talk) 12:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge - To 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Calls for Biden to step aside. Per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. NickCT (talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wait / Weak Keep -I think original nominator suggests likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK as a reason to delete. Likely to devolve into WP:POVFORK should not be an argument to avoid documenting on wikipedia. I also think that its unlikely any of us has the political foresight OR neutrality to properly comment on this topic until at least a month or so after the debate. A fair amount of supporter for Biden seem to be voting to delete, and supporters of removing biden suggest keep. I think notability of this as a lasting event or just another news cycle will depend deeply on time. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Comment but we are having a similar deletion discussion on Age and health concerns of Joe Biden. I would support maybe Merge this article into that one. I also think we should not have a list of every hypothetical replacement for Biden on Wikipedia. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: put the information on one of/and/or two articles: 2024 United States presidential election or Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. No need for a seperate, but this is notable enough a topic for inclusion, just not by itself on its own little kingdom. BarntToust (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the meat of it. This subject is notable and should be on the encyclopedia, but giving it its own article could be WP:UNDUE and WP:OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Why do we have this article while there are others which exist as similar topics (wp:POVFORK)? Toadette^Edit! 19:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of Democrats opposed to Joe Biden's campaign; maybe make a segment for non-Democrats and/or rename the page to "List of those opposed to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. EPBeatles (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:Even as a Biden voter, this is unfortunately an important article. Let's face it, his age and health has declined at a rather unprecedented level for a President, and democrats themself agree. There's stuff, everywhere in the media too. For The Times, Ross Douthat writes: Does America Need a President? Quote Veteran (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not about his age and health; there is already an article for that. How many articles are we going to have on Biden’s age concerns? Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing me to Age and health concerns of Joe Biden which seems to have overlap. Why don't we just combine the two? Quote Veteran (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to that. I would think Age and health concerns of Joe Biden would be the main article and would be less likely to violate WP:NOTNEWS. Prcc27 (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is widely covered and there's no reason to believe that it won't continue to grow in notability. Swinub (talk) 09:54, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect WAY too much overlap with List of Democrats who oppose the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, absolutely no need for a separate article here. Sure, the keep voters are right that this is significant, but there are already multiple pages covering this significant topic. Alternatively I suppose the list of opposers can be merged here instead, but the proliferation of recentism pages that say much the same thing is getting out of hand. Reywas92^Talk 14:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Reywas92. Even if kept, the same content can be found elsewhere. Killuminator (talk) 15:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been one of the main topics on the news worldwide this entire year. Nice NPOV encyclopedia you've got here, lol. Kasperquickly (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article represents one of the downsides of counting on corporate media to be a "reliable source" that demonstrates the preponderance or weight of a subject. To a naked eye, an immense pile-on is occurring, even within the same outlet like the New York Times, that doesn't seem like standard journalism, but per our policies/guidelines, we are not to just ignore it. Strange times. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 20:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that if Wikipedia is exactly as biased as the overall media in exactly the same ways, that means we're doing this volunteer job properly. There's always WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and WP:Deprecated sources. You've been around long enough to remember Wikipedia getting hoodwinked by "experts" with false credentials. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We aren’t ignoring it, it is already covered on several articles. But we have to be careful about creating new articles based solely on breaking news per WP:NOTNEWS. Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This is very clearly a POVFORK. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS. That the article on Biden's election campaign is too long is not really an argument to keep this article, because the former itself needs trimming to remove NOTNEWS and other trivial stuff. If for any reason an article is warranted on this topic, we can always look back later when the dust has settled. Java Hurricane 13:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Whilst the article name makes it sound slightly trivial, the controversy surrounding this makes it feel worthy enough to be an article, not to mention the whole kerfuffle is still happening. Silverleaf81 (talk) 14:47, 14 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

Calls for Joe Biden to suspend his 2024 United States presidential campaign

Navigation menu

Search