Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States presidential election, 2008/archive1

United States presidential election, 2008

I nominate this site because it shows what may be in 2008--Timorrison 19:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support-How can one show the glories of American Democracy than with a future election? I am for it all the way!--216.7.254.254 19:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't want to be rude, but the future I would suggest that you nominate articles based on encyclopedic nature, rather than pride for the topic. Morgan695 19:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Pride is all well and good, but there's not a prayer this could meet the FA criteria, particularly on the stability front. There is little that can be in the article besides speculation and it will change radically. Please remove the nomination. - Taxman ^Talk 19:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I think the page history of changing the nomination comments and from object to support by the same IP would remove any doubts of good faith. - Taxman ^Talk 19:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Agreed with the above, and we do need an oppose in here. Also, the article is nowhere near featured article standard and is about a future event (and therefore is not stable, a featured article requirement). —Cuivi é nen, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 @ 21:02 UTC
Oppose. article unstable by definition. asnatu 21:16, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Plus, you need more of those in-line reference things. --Osbus 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because a future event can't possibly meet the stability criteria. I recommend withdrawing this nomination. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article on an election that does not contain the winner is "omitting a significant fact" and cannot be a featured article (see also: the FA nom for the Beslan school massacre). Raul654 01:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I disagree with this nomination, this strikes me as poor justification. We would have to say it omitted a significant fact insofar as facts presently exist, wouldn't we? If something already happened, then you could cite that as a reason, but in my view it's illogical to say it's omitting a fact when that "fact" doesn't yet exist. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All of the polling and speculation is just that, speculation. --Elkman - ^(talk) 03:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Anything that is verifiable and neutral is not speculation. The time frame of the subject, past or future, is irrelevant; anything that can be cited is by definition in the past. Reporting speculation by others is perfectly encyclopedic; coming up with our own is not. Everyking 06:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object: What does "average of all major polls" actually mean? Where are the many names that are listed coming from? Christopher Parham (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Highly speculative.--Yannick 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest withdrawal. - Mailer Diablo 04:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object will become highly unstable. American Patriot 1776 13:26, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per nom actually. Nominator clearly explains the unstable nature of the article. -- Cat ^chi? 00:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)