Talk:Presumptive nominee

The 2012 Republican 'presumtive' Nominee, Mitt Romney ( in current Wikipedia discussion)

There is interesting banter going on over at Talk:2012_Republican_National_Convention and this article could use some Ron Paul info at the end. Ron Paul recognized Mitt Romney as the presumptive Nominee, assured of the nomination, but his supporters and some of his delegates have a different mindset. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Evidence this term is in use outside US?

All the references and discussion are US-related. Intro should thus be "In US politics ..." unless the term is actually used in any other country - David Gerard (talk) 22:52, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

This article should be deleted because it is no more than a dictionary definition. The word presumptive adds no value other than the definition. Similarly, the term "blue car" means a car that is blue, that's it. A presumptive nominee is just a nominee that is presumed. Dharahara (talk) 21:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

A wise comment from a few years ago..reproduced below.... WP:NEO says "To support... an article about a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." A lot of the keep voters seem to merely want to keep the article because they've heard of the term, but policy and inclusion guidelines are about more than just keeping articles on subjects we've heard of deleting articles on topics we haven't heard of, so a proper close of this AFD will involve looking at whether there is actually any evidence that there are sources about this term... right now there are just sources that use this term in passing. --Rividian (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Dharahara (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

original research is prohibited

There is too much original research in this article. This is illegal according to Wikipedia rules that I just read.

Ronald Reagan was never a presumptive nominee according to reliable sources, only according to Wikipedia people who made it up years or decades after the fact. No source from 1984 says so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dharahara (talk • contribs) 23:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

candidate article

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
FreeRangeFrog recommended discussion about merging it with candidate. That would keep the idea but not have a dictionary definition article. Dharahara (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC) Permission from administrator to move it to Candidate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFreeRangeFrog&type=revision&diff=661736422&oldid=661723921 The entire diff is as follows: I'm not sure what it is about this article, but you can do one of two things. One, simply redirect and merge. As I said, that was part of the potential consensus. Two, you can take it to WP:DRV and see if someone will agree with you that it should be deleted. In my opinion the material is valuable, although again given the AFD it's not entirely clear that it merits a standalone article. So the best outcome I guess is to simply merge and redirect. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 19:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)