Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Right now there's no consensus, and a week from now is the election. I recommend that those who prefer deletion simply ignore this for now; a month from now this discussion will probably look quite different. asilvering (talk) 17:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements

edit

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

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements (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)

It's perhaps because I am not an American, but what is the point of an endless list of Republican politicians who support the candidacy of the sole remaining Republican candidate for president? Isn't it completely trivial that the "Prosecutor of Macomb County", a Republican, supports Trump? Seems like excessive detail about an election which is very important and gets lots of attention (and articles), but where not every bit of completely predictable minutiae needs to be recorded for posterity on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we just discussed split because the old article was far too long, now deleting the subpages would just revert it back to one mega-article Braganza (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or one could just not include this anywhere on Wikipedia of course. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think the americans would approve this, there are always very long endorsement pages Braganza (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What information do they actually convey? Hundreds of Republican officials endorse the Republican presidential candidate (or Democrats for Democrats of course), in what way is that informative? What would be lost by not having this page? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
same with Democrats, its tradition Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We also used to maintain infinite updates about cable and satellite lineups before we all realized it was stupid, promotional, and the providers themselves updated them better. 'American' Wikipedians can easily change consensus when we realize how WP:LAME it is to care about what infomercial networks DirecTV carries, just like the opinions of 'ward captain 534' on the election are wholly irrelevant. Nate • (chatter) 22:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Our tradition never included state assemblypersons, irrelevant and retired political figures, and true shockers like Giuliani being listed and are all recent additions. This is cruft for the sake of WP:POINTy cruft in a 'we have more than the other side' kind of way, which we're non-neutral and some basic guardrails need to be applied to articles like this (the criteria somehow allowed Richard Petty in this article because he had a county board seat decades ago!). Nate • (chatter) 00:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    comment where do these articles come from then Trump 2020 and Obama 2008 Braganza (talk) 06:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter has only had <3,400 views all time since 2018, the former <7,200, and none have ever topped over 100 views for a day. The only thing these articles prove is that a small group of political editors get all wound up about how important these pages are somehow, when they can't even get anywhere near the almost 150,000 views that America's lowest-rated cable news channel has received. This page is currently at 204 views all time; nothing would be lost if we just focused on endorsements the vast majority of the public actually listen to, from elected officials with interests in the results. A lot of light, but very little heat. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Its a completly different discussion, you claimed that we "never included state assemblypersons ect." which is wrong. A discussion about the general inclusion of sub-national politicians should be hold as a RfC like @QuicoleJR said and not the random deletion of an article by people who didn't even participate in the discussion about how to handle these very long articles, where a consensus was reached Braganza (talk) 10:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have so many of these articles, and a tradition of keeping them, that getting rid of these kinds of lists entirely would IMO require an RFC, since a mass AFD for every single list like this that we have would be way too large. Also, I agree that the list could probably be trimmed and merged, but I can't think of any way to do that other than going by the endorsements that reliable sources care about, since anything else would arguably be OR. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a tradition of keeping them, but going by the numbers above who is actually reading them? We're at WP:ITSUSEFUL, but to whom exactly outside of terminally online Twitter users who think the mayor of Clearwater is the one who tips the race either way? Going by the above it really feels like the efforts made by the editors on these articles should be going elsewhere by a mile. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think it would be better to either have an RfC regarding endorsement lists or nominate every article like this at AfD instead of just one or two. Otherwise, there may arise a scenario where multiple consensuses form due to too many separate discussions.
Additionally, to address some comments, this list includes endorsements from Democrats along with Republicans. Yes, there are only a handful of Democrats that endorse Trump, but they exist. There are no Ward Captains listed or, more to the point, nothing with a similar theme so far as I see. Mayors are all notable as noted above and a quick check I did seem to have them be mayors of areas with a population of over 100,000 or more in the surrounding area, which does not seem to be a 'Run of the Mill' mayor. If this does get merged, I would suggest considering that it should go to the support section of the Trump 2024 campaign as that looks to be the main article for the lists. Finally, I do endorse removing the images from the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While the people on this list may be notable in their own right (there are some red links), I don't see how most of their endorsements are notable. I don't think a Republican in a strongly Republican state endorsing the Republican presidential candidate is important or going to sway anything. Many of the sources used on here are local news or, worse, Twitter, which is used for 19 people. Though, I agree that there should probably be an RfC on these things and what should and should not be included in them. Wowzers122 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Tito Ortiz endorsement...does anyone in WPP know how terrible MMA sourcing is and the edit wars in that section of the project (and we have multiple SEO blogs cited here that are otherwise disqualified if we put them in a BLP)?! And somehow this page has gone this long with no talk page added...these are elementary things you learn for your first article, not something like this. Again, we're talking about pages here the vast majority of readers avoid which have been proven by pageviews. We've killed walled-garden pages for much less egregious editing standards. Nate • (chatter) 21:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "adding" talk page is not the first thing you do, with what even? what do you expect there to be?
    people who have questions or maybe want to connect it to projects can create talk pages, but you don't do it for fun Braganza (talk) 09:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also as a reminder the article was created by splitting, so the article "has [not] gone this long" but was roughly of the size when i created it. I really don't understand your points here
    To be clear i would support a RfC, i would personally not even mind to remove local/state politicians but this should be done properly and not by the deletion of one single instance where local/state politicians are listed. Braganza (talk) 09:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Donald_Trump_2024_presidential_campaign_state,_municipal,_sub-state,_and_local_officials_endorsements&oldid=1254367375"