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

[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 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]
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]
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)[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]