Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biden crisis: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Disambiguation links added
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit
Line 202: Line 202:
*'''Keep'''. The subject doesn't lack for coverage and the article has plenty of sources. [[User:Tisnec|Tisnec]] ([[User talk:Tisnec|talk]]) 00:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. The subject doesn't lack for coverage and the article has plenty of sources. [[User:Tisnec|Tisnec]] ([[User talk:Tisnec|talk]]) 00:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep'''. Obviously more than notable and significant enough in line with other articles of the type.--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><small>[[User:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:DarkGoldenRod;">~Sıgehelmus♗</b>]]<sub>[[User talk:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:CornflowerBlue">(Tøk)</b>]]</sub></small></span> 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
*'''Speedy Keep'''. Obviously more than notable and significant enough in line with other articles of the type.--<span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;"><small>[[User:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:DarkGoldenRod;">~Sıgehelmus♗</b>]]<sub>[[User talk:Sigehelmus|<b style="color:CornflowerBlue">(Tøk)</b>]]</sub></small></span> 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Strong and Speedy Keep''' This is the first incumbent president to withdraw from reelection in 60 years (since Lyndon B. Johnson), and more notably it happened only 4 months before the actual election. The close proximity to the election is notable for the campaign for whoever becomes the final Democratic candidate since they'll be starting (or gaining traction) so late. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:38, 22 July 2024

Biden crisis

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

Biden crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's subject is inextricably linked with the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is covered in a dedicated section there. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, there are times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times, and I believe that this page should be redirected to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw, which covers this topic in the context of the broader campaign. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Speedy delete/redirect to the main Biden 2024 campaign page, or at the very least, significantly overhaul the naming ("Biden crisis" is too vague/not clearly the proper name per secondary sources, "Joever" is just internet slang, not really used) Reflord (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bourne Ballin (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article, merge content with age and health concerns of Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign User:WoodElf 17:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the title is not intended to be WP:NPOV. I have internal opinions that I have expressed before on Biden withdrawing, but I have set those aside for this article. The title is supported by three references, and there are additional sources—such as NPR—that have used the specific term "Biden crisis", with additional sources—such as Politico, CNN twice, and The New York Times—describing this as a crisis in general. Google Trends data shows that this is not an arcane term. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 17:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a word on this page needs to be on a separate article, it can all be covered in the campaign article or related pages. I'd suggest expanding Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign#Calls for Biden to withdraw with these sources and proposing a split on the talk page rather than creating another overlapping page. If he withdraws, 2024 Democratic National Convention would be a good place for the subsequent procedures. Reywas92Talk 18:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the list was practically the entire article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:58, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my vote based on the ever-changing circumstances. Aintabli (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep He withdrew. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because is it not an historic occasion? Even when Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew from the 1964 presidential election, it was in March; Biden has done it in mid July after a debate. Maurnxiao (talk) 18:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously notable, incumbent president and democratic nominee withdraws from the race. Precedent with other large American politicians in Removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House Personisinsterest (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Now that the "Biden crisis" is over and has culminated in Biden's resignation, this article's scope has expanded into a much more notable event. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep:
The withdrawal of a campaign this late into the trail is unprecedented and a noteworthy event in American history. Monological (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now that this has actually happened, this is clearly notable and also identifiable in terms of scope. Gust Justice (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Yes, Biden withdrew from the race, and yes it's notable, but we still don't need a separate article. Certain things can simply be in a section even if they are very notable, as the actual content of Biden dropping out can be covered easily in one paragraph in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk)
Keep, as this is a very historic moment in US history. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 18:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he has withdrawn and it's clearly notable, also per others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You not liking the presence of the tag itself is not really a justification for keeping it. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Very little reasoning behind deletion; Further details regarding the event will inevitably be provided within the forthcoming days, not to mention that this is quite arbitrary given the spectacle of information currently available. Queries regarding why are futile. WP:TOOSOON
TheRevisionary (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was too soon to put it up; it is not too soon to take it down. GenevieveDEon (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The existence of this article violates the policy of WP:RECENT and sets an unmangable precedent. In the future, if (and probably when) American presidents drop out of races, are we going to need to create articles for all those situations too? It would be best to restrict discussion of this event to the existing article on Biden's presidential campaign; we can circle back to the issue later but I don't foresee this being worthy of an entire article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    are we going to need to create articles for all those situations too? That would be at most one article every four years. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a very notable event and should maintain its own article. I could see it being deleted when it was "Biden crisis", but the official withdrawal makes this a monumental moment in American politics, since the withdrawal/refusal of an eligible incumbent reelection bid hasn't happened in nearly 60 years. AmericanBaath (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - A merging of all the details in this article can go to the other (per nom). We do not have a corresponding withdrawal article for LBJ (1968 announcement) and the same should be applied here. — That Coptic Guyping me! (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. NikolaiVektovich (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign. Procyon117 (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign Asigooo (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Biden has withdrawn. This has made worldwide headlines and is the latest withdrawal in U.S. history before the November election, thus being extremely notable per WP:GNG. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it's still part of a wider narrative which already has a page, and I'm not seeing any compelling argument for why this specific moment within that narrative requires its own page. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now there is no way of knowing how long the article could be and due to the event happening merely a few hours ago there isnt enough information due to the fact it may violate WP:RECENT Takis S1 (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see how originally it would've made sense to remove the page and merge its contents into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, however due to him stepping down from the race, I feel like this article has become notable enough to remain, due to it being the first premature end of campaign for an incumbent since Lyndon B. Johnson's withdrawal in March 1968 (so 56 years, 3 months and 22 days now) and the first withdrawal of an incumbent after the presidential debates since they began in earnest in 1960. maemolol, arbiter of æ (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a historically significant event which already has a large amount of context useful to document separate from the main article, a section on the main article would likely miss important information ObjectOrientedCat (talk) 21:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now as it's a current event and people will be searching for information for it and an article will offer more information in a more organized manner. Maybearidan (talk) 21:33, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. We're not running a current affairs ticker - this is an encyclopedia, and there is no reason for an encyclopedia to treat today's events as so completely separate from the wider campaign that they need their own article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and merge) for now, if nothing else. But I'd recommend waiting a bit longer to see how lengthy and well-sourced this article becomes, to determine whether or not it deserves to be independent of other articles. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is this a real discussion? Of course we will keep this article. This covers a topic that holds verifiable information about a real-world subject and contributes to the overall comprehensiveness of human knowledge.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But how does that justify it being a separate article? That's what's contested here, and no amount of people saying 'it's notable' or 'it's true' or 'it's verifiable' or 'it's a current news story' addresses that key question. As with the ITN nomination for this story, people are so intent on defending the idea that it's important that they're not stopping to answer the question posed, which is 'should we handle it like this?' GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on the length of the article. As it's currently written, it's long enough to be independent. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, as this is simply the end of that campaign. Resist, folks, resist, the urge to make new articles for every single event just because it's piping hot out of the news. See WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It is in fact possible to write succinctly. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article seems to be too big to easily merge into Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign, which is a large article. Also, this withdrawal is a historically significant event that can easily justify having its own article. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, there's relatively little new content not covered in a half dozen other articles. Take away the padding, and the transcribed text of Biden's letter, and you've got a few decent paragraphs. More words doesn't mean better writing. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOW keep - per BugGhost. Jdcomix (talk) 21:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep: OK, I am not a registered user on here, but as an unregistered user, my thoughts reflect the thousands of Wikipedia readers who may see this article and go "This is being nominated for deletion?!" The removal of Kevin McCarthy is notable enough for an article but this is not?? This is breaking news and has made headlines worldwide, which is a given as this is a huge event that marks a literal turning point in the election. It's not just about Joe Biden's campaign ending, it's about all that led up to it and all that will result from it. This is historic cause a sudden (and I mean sudden) revolt against a party's presumptive nominee is unheard of in modern times, and no one has ever withdrawn so close to the election, after the debate and so close to the Democratic convention. This convention will be like no other because of this. There is so much to write about here. Some of y'all are saying this is recentism since the withdrawal of LBJ doesn't have an article, but this article already has a substantial amount of content cause of how notable it is, and more to come, cause the effects of this are still unfolding. It has made headlines worldwide already cause it is just so unprecedented in recent times and again, it is a literal turning point in the election. Whatever precedents exist on Wikipedia, yall just cannot say that this is not notable enough for an article. 71.28.113.196 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This is an extremely significant event in world history and in the history of the USA. Only twice in 235 years has the incumbent President has not sought re-election. The LJB case was different for a whole host of reasons. The Biden case is different and significant for a whole host of reasons - in particular the fact that the decision was prima facie not of the President's making. The day before withdrawing he insisted for the umpteenth time that he would not withdraw - it should be clear that he was ousted, that he did not genuinely quit of his own volition. That is politically significant. Nobody knows what the next four and a half years will hold - but today's announcement virtually guarantees that Republican Donald Trump will be President for a second term from 2025 to 2029. Biden's withdrawal is a history-changing moment - we won't know how significant a history-changing moment it was until the next five years have played out. Here is a tenuous analogy that all-the-same is, I think, pertinent, interesting and undeniable - JFK's assassination has its own WP page (it's not merged with his main article). JFK's assassination brought about an involuntary end to his Presidency, and the ripples of that moment are still being felt to this day. Does anyone really believe that Biden voluntary ended his re-election campaign? How can you insist yesterday that you WILL CONTINUE and today announce that you are stepping down? While his Presidency continues for the time-being, his re-election campaign is dead. Perhaps between now and January 2025 we'll see him resign the Presidency to his VP Kamala Harris. That's a "what if" scenario. Is it likely? I think so. Taking all this into account, today is a momentous occurrence in US political history. Every President (except those assassinated while in office) has experienced around 75 days of being a Lame Duck President. We now have a situation where Joe Biden faces 183 days of Lame Duck Presidential status. That is unprecedented (pun acknowledged but not intentional). If you doubted the suggestion that Biden will soon resign, perhaps you will think again. Whether he stays or resigns, today's announcement is a landmark moment akin to JFK's assassination or Nixon's resignation.
Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's some WP:CRYSTAL nonsense you've got there, not to mention a lot of editorialising about the campaign, rather than about the substantive question for this discussion page. Nothing you've said justifies today's events specifically having a page that's separate from the main one about Biden's campaign. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've made my vote and I have discussed my reasons. I will not be disenfranchised nor blithely dismissed by your pair of sentences. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect- Beacuse this article don't independiently reflect the moment, ok 181.39.69.107 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - This changed drastically after the withdrawal but still should be redirected to JBs 2024 campaign. Bohbye (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massive Juicy Thicc Keep. This is a major historical event in US political history and is an incredibly rare anomaly in American political history. Biden's withdrawal is a significant event in not only this election, but in American history. It is a watershed moment for the 2024 Presidential Election. TheCubingCow (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: This is significant in US history we can't just delete it now. CAnny (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agree 27skierman (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
QalasQalas (talk) 23:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While it isn’t that much info since it is recent, there will be more information that will be added into the article. Additionally, this event is pretty rare since LBJ not accepting his second term as president in 1968. Zekromu88 (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Maintaining such a page is unnecessary as this could be covered in the Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign article. ManOfDirt (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NOTNEWS, articles for other major announcements like LBJ in 1968 don't exist, and no additional content. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally, a candidate dropping out of a primary race is not noteworthy enough to have its own article. However, the unprecedented event of an incumbent president dropping out of a primary race after securing a majority of delegates, alongside the weeks/months of prominent Democrats calling for Biden to drop out, is significant enough to warrant its own article. The 2024 Biden campaign article can provide a summary explaining that he dropped out, and this article can go into more detail. I see this article's scope as going into more detail.--JasonMacker (talk) 22:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep An Absolute Landmark Decision that changes everything about the 2024 U.S Presidential Election. Why delete it? InterDoesWiki (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because there are already plenty of articles about that election, including specifically about Biden's campaign, which could carry this information. You can Capitalise As Many Common Words as you like - that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GenevieveDEon I feel that you are out of order for criticizing and dismissing another editor simply because they capitalised certain words in their text. Some people do that unconsciously out of habit, some people do it because of paralexical conditions, some people do it simply for emphasis. And above all, this discussion is about whether or not the article is "redundant", to use your argot - therefore it is fallacious to assert "that's not an argument for retaining a redundant article" since the "argument" (n.b. WP prefers the word discussion) is concerned with the very issue of possible redundancy.
Keep - As a wider point, I think it is crucial that editors contributing to this discussion set aside any party-political allegiances and consider the noteworthiness of today's events purely from a future-historical standpoint. As a British citizen I can happily say that my views on the historical importance of this article (as a standalone article) are not influenced by party-politics. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also British, and I'm revolted by the wild level of American exceptionalism on display both in this discussion and the ITN one. And while drawing attention to another user's capitalisation might be a little unfair, I was doing it to underscore my wider point: a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed for it when there are already other articles. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is heartening that you seem to have calmed down, thank you for that. Being frank, I'm not interested in your nationality or how revolting you are.
You lost me at "a lot of people are making arguments about the significance of the event, rather than whether a content fork is needed". Genuinely, without the merest hint of reflecting your belligerence, isn't the significance of the event the absolutely decisive, key factor in whether a separate article is required? Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. The decisive factor when it's a subtopic like this is whether there's enough material to justify a separate article. Otherwise we can and should merge back to the main article. See WP:SPLIT. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I'm using 'argument' in the sense of 'a series of reasoned statements directed at a conclusion', rather than the sense of 'a row'. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you already !voted - I just saw you responding to me below your original !vote, and yet you've also bolded the word 'keep' down here. GenevieveDEon (talk) 22:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You perhaps should try not to be so triggered by Capital letters or typographical formatting. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what triggered means. Please do something about your double-!vote. GenevieveDEon (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've never known anybody who was triggered by the word triggered before. As to the double-vote issue - I strongly suspect the outcome isn't triggered by the number of times the word keep appears in bold. I'm sure it's much more scientific than that - like using math or some such technology. I'm tickled at how you initially tried to deny me my one vote, by being blithely dismissive, and now you're accusing me of election-interference by taking two! I hope you'll keep on editing with such fervour. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A potentially epochal event, given the recent state of the presidential race and what's at stake. — The Anome (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close: the topic of this AFD has fundamentally changed part way through, with Biden's withdrawal announcement. A lot of earlier !votes are irrelevant given the change in factual situation (from pressure on Biden to withdraw to his actual withdrawal). I think it makes this AFD too confusing. Close it, and then if people want to delete the current article, those who do so can open a new nomination starting from a blank slate. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a major event right now, it appears on the current events page, and it would be inappropriate to delete it, at least for now, at a later date, it could be merged with other articles concerning Bidens run, however, for now it should be kept as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieMoomin07 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Close per SomethingForDeletion: I agree, this seems to be such an imprecise discussion by now that it's best off to close it and start anew, where the arguments for and against can be put much more clearly. If, for whatever reason, that's improper AfD procedure (I don't know, I'm rarely round these parts), then Keep. Gazamp (talk) 22:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign per above. Plenty of candidates have withdrawn from presidential elections, and plenty of sitting leaders have resigned from positions of power. We do not, however, create dedicated articles for this. Instead, attempting to keep it as part of a parent article where the entire context is provided. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In fairness, there are a few instances where there are articles for leaders resigning positions of power at Category:Resignations. Not particularly saying whether there should be or not, just food for thought! Gazamp (talk) Gazamp (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. However, I must add that they are either disambiguation/redirects to political crisis/coup articles, or themselves being a standalone article about the developments leading to the resignation. For example, if Resignation of Jacinda Ardern is to be deleted, there are no alternative articles that describe the complete dynamic leading up to the resignation. In Biden's case the campaign article should be sufficient. Having two articles is unnecessary duplication of the exact same things. They both touch upon his presidency, they both touch upon his primary performance, they both talk about his debate performance, etc. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Though I think I still disagree, I definitely see your point. Thanks for taking the time to clarify! Gazamp (talk) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're advocating for just deleting over one hundred editor's points-of-view and starting again. On the face of it that does sound like improper procedure, yes. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not my intention, just adding my two cents onto what is a very unwieldly discussion. Seeing as what everyone's talking about has changed so much in the few hours that we've been talking about it, I don't think it serves any of us well to continue. 100% fair enough if others whole-heartedly disagree though - that's what this is about. Gazamp (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Secondly, I am free to opine against the tide. Thirdly, I did not advocate to delete it. Frankly, I do not understand what argument you are trying to make here. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've misread the thread, man. My reply was to Gazamp. Indeed you are free to opine, as is everybody else (which is kind of like a democracy). Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry. I was really confused about that response, assuming it to be directed towards me. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Apology accepted. It can be confusing. Flusapochterasumesch (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI "blatantly" and "obvious" mean the same thing, so using them together creates an unneeded redundancy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI they have different connotations, uses and "energies". If something is "obvious" it's readily self-evident. If it's "blatant", it's outspokenly clear and doesn't even try subtlety. Etymology: Stuffy Latin vs Spenserian poetry.--~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and Speedy Keep This is the first incumbent president to withdraw from reelection in 60 years (since Lyndon B. Johnson), and more notably it happened only 4 months before the actual election. The close proximity to the election is notable for the campaign for whoever becomes the final Democratic candidate since they'll be starting (or gaining traction) so late. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Biden_crisis&oldid=1235936689"