RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/1984 U.S. presidential election

1984 U.S. presidential election | Result: Deleted; literally 1984

1984 U.S. presidential election (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Not very good, stub for 2+ years. Gale5050 (talk) 20:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
2. Christopher (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
3. Dubiously needed. Will just turn crufty. Maybe a collection of historical US presidential elections as a single article could be useful, but this is not one of the more interesting kinds. Techpriest (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
4. Achieves nothing. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
5. I'm not convinced that articles about long-ago elections really fit the mission all that well. What purpose does this serve? Avida Dollars^{her again} 12:53, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
6. -Flandres (talk) 13:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
7. Monet ^Ye 18:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
8. Hopelessly tiny stub, would be better off as a section in our Ronald Reagan article or something. --Goatspeed. _{Fossil evidence of my evolution}CircularRasoning^{See what I've been messing around with} 18:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
9. I can't even fathom what this article sets out to achieve. 主要行事月 (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
10. Need it be said? Kauri0.o (talk) 22:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
11. Wasn't a particularly interesting US election. Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 22:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

    I'd say it was unique enough being so lopsided and in recent memory. That said, it wasn't even the most lopsided one in history (1936, when FDR beat Alf Landon 523:8 by winning all but Maine and Vermont, with a 60.8/36.5% divide of the popular vote). ℕoir LeSable (talk) 00:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    Well, it is notable for being the latest "landslide election" by the usual standard...but that can be easily mentioned on other articles if necessary.-Flandres (talk) 00:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    Well, that isn't totally true. I can go to https://map.jacksonjude.com/ and see 1984 was the last time in which anyone won more then 270 "safe" votes as in margins of 15%+. He won by 19% in the popular vote. But 1988 was still 7.7%, 1996 was 8.5% and 2008 was 7.2%. If I were to look at Wikipedia tipping points, this was 19%, whereas 1988 would be 7.9, 1996 would be 9.2 and 2008 would be 9 (for a tie). Finally, while Reagan was the last to recieve over 500 votes, Bush recieved 426 in 1988, and Clinton recieved 379 in 1996 and Obama got 365 in 2008. So all three and maybe even 1992 could be considered landslides. Gale5050 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    I was going by "double digit margin of victory in terms of the popular vote." In percentages, obviously.-Flandres (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

    But should that really be used? I mean, 1800 was, but the electoral college was 73-65 and Adams needed just a 3% shift. Where as the margin was only 9.7% in 1980 and only required an 8% shift, but was still a 489-49 victory. What is a "landslide" is subjective. What I will agree on, is that it was the most recent major landslide. Now this discussion is getting off topic. Gale5050 (talk) 01:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

12. I am unable to see the point in this article, it accomplishes nothing and in earnest sounds relatively sympathetic to Ronald Reagan. AprilIsTrying 23:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
13. Not a single substantial edit since 2019. Even moving it to draftspace would be a waste of time. GeeJayK (talk) 03:54, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Keep

1. I'm sure Flandres and/or Plutocow would love to expand the article. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   If either of them actually posts here indicating that they really will expand the article, I will consider changing my vote to keep. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 12:32, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   Flandres does not want to expand.Gale5050 (talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Goat

1. You know, if the majority of the RW mob didn't topic-ban me, perhaps I could've expanded these types of stubs so that they wouldn't get nominated for deletion. Just saying. UShistoryanalyzer (talk) 04:14, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   You can always appeal it. Gale5050 (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   Expand them with inaccurate garbage like you usually do? It's better to just delete them at that point.-Flandres (talk) 13:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   Wah wah, don't get topic banned in the first place. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   That's not entirely fair to say. Gale5050 (talk) 23:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   In this case, if you knew the context? Yes, it is.-Flandres (talk) 23:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

   ┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Personally, I believe no one should be discriminated against for any type of sanction, block or other negative action against them. Hence, LGM's comment is still inappropriate. Gale5050 (talk) 01:12, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

   User gotta earn their respect back. I haven't seen it. I just remember them for bad takes and citing things like Heritage Foundation (such as in this riveting intellectual discourse in Fun talk:Mississippi) and not really understanding the issue with those takes. Sure, RWRW, a mod, started as an obnoxious dolt who was way more annoying than you and has a more than a few takes I'd consider bad, but they took effort to get trust back and ended up as a mod people like. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)