Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016

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 keep and it's good to see a WP:RM discussion for settling on the title, since that seems to be somewhat contentious. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016

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

Highly problematic article, vehicle for all sorts of partisan interventions, anything legitimate should be incorporated in the main article on this election. PatGallacher (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we want to delete articles because they might be a target for "partisan interventions", we might as well delete every political-related article on Wikipedia, including those on politicians.(seen Barack Obama's edit history lately?) From what I know there have been no such issues with the page at this moment. The article about the election is already lengthy and this would get buried in it. This is about a very unusual occurrence which is receiving a great deal of attention and deserves a separate page. I would support a merge if it was the only option vs. outright deletion, but I don't think that should happen either. 331dot (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a separate and noteworthy issue which deserves distinct treatment. Section on History of Faithless Electors could be strengthened. "Partisan interventions" can be dealt with as they arise. -- Velocipedus (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 06:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to have good enough sourcing to establish notability. It's even got international coverage: [1] from The Independent and [2] from News.com.au. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced and easily passes the notability threshold. POV problems, actual and potential, can and should be dealt with via normal collaborative editing, not through outright deletion of the article. —Psychonaut (talk)
Speedy Keep because page is clearly notable. ProgrammingNerd (talk) 14:13, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. It mentioned by hundreds of sources so it merits an article. The article does need some work on neutrality. --Frmorrison (talk) 14:19, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The Electoral College is playing a uniquely prominent role this election cycle, and faithless (or conscientious) electors have as of this writing litigated the matter in California, Washington, and Colorado, and have lost in all three states. Certainly notable already both politically and constitutionally whatever comes down on Monday. kencf0618 (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of WP:RS to make this article pass WP:GNG. Any partisan material can be edited. --Jersey92 (talk) 04:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough as viewed by coverage, and wanting more depth than could be reasonably allowed for in the full article on the election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most definitely notable. TheCrazedBeast (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We don't have articles like this for the many other presidential elections that had faithless electors. Instead we have, simply and appropriately, notes or small subsections in the articles for those elections. After Monday, this topic will be nothing more than trivia. Earthscent (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthscent: The reason we don't is because organized efforts to encourage faithlessness are unheard of, and this is recieving significant coverage. This is also developing some case law that did not exist before. This will still be notable even after a likely Trump win. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wild speculation by the media makes those media sources unreliable. Only one Republican elector has indicated he will be faithless. That is not enough to create an article. Earthscent (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we have an extensive one. Two electors resigned rather than vote, and Lessig says there could be 20-30 more It may not end up that way most likely but it is still notable and should not be buried in the larger article. As I indicated, we are also seeing some case law in this area, which is new and relevant to the future. Deleting this would be short sighted. 331dot (talk) 00:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has not been any election in modern history with anywhere near the number of WP:RS discussing an effort to organize faithless electors. This year's effort is clearly notable. --19:32, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

SNOW Keep - gobs of sources, and will likely continue to be relevant even after the electoral college votes. Can we get a SNOW closure? Tazerdadog (talk) 00:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hamilton Electors per WP:POVTITLE. We don't title articles about a group with the name the group's enemies use to smear them. "Faithless" is obviously a pejorative, and is prejudiced in the controversy involved. With any other group we would name the article with the name the group uses for themselves, except possibly when there is some other name that is universally more common. The awkward mouthful "Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016" is not a common term, whereas Hamilton Electors is in wide use, per article naming convention. The traditional term Faithless elector also fails to encompass electors in the 2016 election who have taken action other than changing their vote, such as resignation, public commentary, or seeking intelligence briefings on the email hacking. Hamilton Elector encompasses all electors in this general category. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Hamilton Electors" is not a generic term for faithless electors, it's a specific subset thereof. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was. I said it is narrow in the sense that it refers only to the 2016 election, and it's broader than 'faithless', because it includes not only those who don't vote as expected. The Hamilton group covers other electors, such as those who resigned, or who have sought information on the email hacking, or done other activity. It also includes the organizers and supporters of this group, who themselves are not electors. All of those goings on have fallen under the name of Hamilton Electors, along with non-electors who are supporters of the movement. When you speak of a faithless lector of the election of 18-- you leave out other people who might have been involved; it refers only to the elector himself. Hamilton Electors is a movement of sorts that sprung into existence during this election. It's the precise, correct term for the subject. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except if you go to Google news results for, say, recent news on Chris Suprun, you'll see plenty of headlines discussing him as a faithless elector, rather than placing him in the Hamilton group. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Except? No. Not except. You're aware that I already said "some use the term faithless elector". So you've proven what I already acknowledged, that some use of the term exists. What's notable about your Chris Suprun articles is that they are mostly negative news and opinionated attacks on him, or arguments that the Hamilton Electors are wrong/illegal/hopeless/silly etc. Proving what I said: it's the pejorative preferred by the anti-Hamilton Electors POV. We have a policy against POV titles. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL is another reason that an article titled Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 should not exist. Until they cast their votes, there are no faithless electors in 2016. This article title is based on speculation about what people might do or have claimed they might do in the future, on December 19, 2016. The crystal ball policy allows articles about future events that are "scheduled or expected". The vote tomorrow will happen, but how the individuals will vote is not known. Maybe none of them will vote against expectations, and no faithless electors in 2016 will even exist. On the other hand, regardless of what happens tomorrow, the Hamilton Electors moment does exist in the present. It will not evaporate, regardless of how the vote happens tomorrow. The group's ideas, supporters, critics and participants will always be a historical fact that won't be changed by future events. The article Faithless elector, similarly, isn't scoped to cover discussion or activism meant to convince future electors to change their votes. Such a movement is a different topic, and in 2016 the name of that movement is Hamilton Electors. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL prevents us from speculating on future events; it does not prevent us from covering extensively reported speculation in reliable sources. The policy is very clear on this point: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." (emphasis in original) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a notable and unprecedented event in modern US Politics, of historical interest long after the election itself is over. --Aabicus (talk) 23:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Certainly notable, and will continue to be of lasting historical interest in the coming decades. It surely will remain significant in terms of time, and by no means "until Monday only". – Btw: "Hamilton Electors" and others should get a links to this page. – Strong and speedy Keep --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 08:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very notable. -Xbony2 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, with the evidence and reasons presented above, can this be closed as KEEP per WP:SNOW? --Jersey92 (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hope not. The moment anyone puts up an alternative view, you think it should be cut short before anyone else can consider it? Let it run the usual time so everyone can have their say. All this shouting "strong" and "speedy" and "snow" sounds to me like bluster to distract from a lack of facts and sound reasoning. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Clearly meets the WP:SIGCOV portion of the GNG, and as per Gerhardvalentin the topic "will continue to be of lasting historical interest in the coming decades". IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there are no faithless electors or if there are only a few. Keep if this turns into something real. -- Kndimov (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The organized effort turned out to be a joke. Just a big media spectacle. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The organized effort itself is notable, getting much coverage, and resulting in some case law being developed; such an effort is historically rare. 331dot (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep for many good reasons given above. Brianhe (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but potentially rename. I would tend to agree with the arguments for keep, but depending on what happens (ie if there were only to be 3 or less faithless electors) a title change to something like 2016 United States Presidential Electoral College vote might be appropriate. The debates and discussions around this issue have themselves been notable. Dunarc (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dunarc: there were four faithless just in Washington State, so I take it your !vote is keep? - Brianhe (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Brianhe: Yes, in light of events I would vote Keep. Thanks, Dunarc (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Easily meets WP:SIGCOV, even if you think the coverage is "speculative" or you otherwise don't like how the media is handling this issue. The faithless votes have now been cast, so the article itself is not "speculative." szyslak (t) 23:06, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There are several confirmed faithless electors, far more than in any previous US presidential election so it's notable enough. Ptok-Bentoniczny (talk) 23:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although the article is a bit disjointed in places (in terms of NPOV or what topics it covers), the topic is noteworthy (all over the news) to an extent far greater than most presidential elections. This article can be improved, renamed, maybe even merged somehow, but none of that is a reason to delete it. Kingdon (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This appears historically unconventional and is certainly notable. GWA88 (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable event, the efforts to unbind electors have significant coverage themselves. Consider merge with Hamilton Electors.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now seems notable as this is historically unprecedented. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: There were 8 in 1912, 27 in 1896, 63 in 1872, 23 in 1836, 32 in 1832, 7 in 1828, 19 in 1796 according to Faithless elector. -- Kndimov (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kndimov: yeah but this is the first time in quite a while (104 years if the Faithless elector article is correct), although I do agree that it is not the best reason for a keep vote, which is why I said Keep "for now". Inter&anthro (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Inter&anthro: Don't misunderstand me, there have been faithless electors far more recently than 1904. I just listed the occasions where there were more than 7. There was 1 in 2004, 1 in 2000, 1 in 1988, 1 in 1976, 1 in 1972, 1 in 1968... etc... -- Kndimov (talk) 00:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The issue's been getting a lot of coverage. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Kndimov. It was all a joke. Note that efforts by some Democratic electors to vote for Bernie Sanders were quashed and faithful electors found to replace them. This whole thing was "sound and fury signifying nothing". There was never a shot of preventing Trump's election in this way, probably not even legal grounds, as shown by the ease with which efforts to cast meaningless pro-Sanders votes could be handled. The problems are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RS. Are the sources really giving people a reliable understanding of the issues surrounding the electoral college? Srnec (talk) 01:49, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Number of faithless electors is the most in a very long time so clearly notable. This is much more than just a lone disgruntled elector. Dash77 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - This was evidently created to act as a vehicle to delegitimize or prevent the Trump presidency. The plan (also knows as the "CIA coup") backfired. Putin is on the floor laughing. Me too. And congratulations to Faith Spotted Eagle. Have a nice 4 years, America! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, this was a news event that was heavily featured in all kinds of media worldwide. This article easily passes the treshold for notability, and should be kept. —♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 02:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and close per WP:SNOW - Regardless of one's opinions on the election, this is a subject that passes WP:N and WP:V to the point of hilarity, and there will be snowball fights on the Styx before this is a legitimate subject for deletion. (As a footnote, 'faithless elector' is not a perjorative against the electors in question, it is the actual term used to describe 'not voting for the candidate the electoral votes are supposed to go to'). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:03, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is clearly notable in its own right, and has received extensive news coverage. Mattflaschen - Talk 04:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy and strong Keep per everything already said. MB298 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There were more faithless electors this time than in any previous US presidential election (with the exception of the time when Horace Greeley died after the election but before the electoral college voted). Even more importantly, significant coverage in reliable sources is plentiful. The article should be pruned, though. It's bloated. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Historians will be scratching their heads over this election for the next thousand years, including the extreme oddness of this particular meeting of the Electoral College. The article on the election as a whole is already extremely long, so merging this page into it seems like an extremely bad idea. Petronius2 (talk) 06:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Significantly notable: we have never had faithless electors in this quantity before, or votes for this many distinct people. This being said, the article should be cleaned up. Intrinsicanomaly (talk) 07:10, 20 December 2016 (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.