Talk:2014 Nebraska gubernatorial election

Linkfarm
I have brought the case of campaign external links on election pages to WP:EL/N. I find them a plain violation of the standards against linkfarming, and these links are indirect. As this is, apparently, 'standard' (which it is not), I think that a local discussion does not really help - therefore the noticeboard discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:57, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Do note that one of the campaign-links is dead, and one is a redirect to a facebook page (and we have 7 links for 8 candidates). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I note the discussion at WP:EL consisted only of some personal opinions of User:Beetstra and User:Ronz. Since when is such considered a binding consensus? These lists were put in place years ago because so many candidates had their articles deleted because they were purportedly "non-notable". Claims that those articles would be "merged" into the election articles proved to be lies. "speedy deletions" were timed for the exact time required for the "required discussion" for reinstatement to end right after the election. Efforts to include each candidate's campaign site, financial information, Project Vote Smart et al within the election article itself were deleted. Efforts to create redirects for candidate names to point to election articles were deleted. iow, too hot, too col, too wet, too dry aka WP:GAMING aka trees not forest. I'm curious to hear how these actions are supposed to support WP:FIVEPILLARS of Wikipedia. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please WP:FOC.
 * I see no policy-based argument for making exceptions to the consensus that applies to such cases. --Ronz (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There are rules for qualifying for a gubernatorial candidacy in Nebraska, as there are in every state, and those rules are challenging, usually thousands of voter signatures from many counties in a short period of time. Anyone who accomplishes the qualifying process should automatically be considered sufficiently "notable" for the Nebraska gubernatorial page, and should be included in external links. These are not "link farms"; they are legitimate ways for non-incumbents to let voters know about their websites and their campaigns. I have added many, many external links for candidates myself -- in many states -- because I believe in helping non-incumbents. The incumbents and party favorites have plenty of opportunity to be heard and to have their websites found -- it is the NON-incumbents, and the outsider challengers, who need links from Wikipedia. Deleting those links hurts non-incumbents. In other words, Wikipedia fights "incumbency protection" and deleting candidate website links helps support "incumbency protection." Why would anyone want to do that? JesseAlanGordon (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * These are plain linkfarms in violation of WP:NOT, and, as for example in this case, even a violation of WP:NPOV (as there were 8 candidates when I first checked and only 7 linked, and of the 7 linked, one was a dead page - some people are candidates and do not have an official campaign website - giving hence undue weight to the other people in those lists). Moreover, we are talking about the election, not about the individual campaigns.  These links are indirectly related to the election.  They are more directly linked to the person who runs the campaign (the candidate himself, and in fact, some of the campaign pages are already linked from the candidate's pages - though even there one could consider them indirect).
 * Note that statements like "it is the NON-incumbents, and the outsider challengers, who need links from Wikipedia" (my bolding) is a plain violation of WP:SOAPBOX (part of the pillar WP:NOT). We are not here to promote the candidates, we are writing an encyclopedia here.
 * WP:NPOV and WP:NOT are 2 of our pillars, and WP:EL is a guideline with longstanding consensus - if one can show me policy based inclusion reasons, then please go ahead, but the statement 'is standard on election pages' is not an inclusion criterion. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, all the candidates are mentioned in the text, thát is where the focus should be. If avoiding incumbent protection is your goal, then at least these lists should be complete - if they are not, and (on my first encounter) it is completely not, then those lists should simply not be there.  Mentioning none of the campaign links is just as neutral as mentioning all, everything between that should be strictly avoided.  Also note, one could consider an article Nebraska gubernatorial election campaigns, 2014 - with one small lead section, and then (in alphabetical order) sections for the 8 candidates, referencing their main statements, and on such an article links to the campaign websites may be includable (though one would still be having the problem that if one of the # candidates does not have a functional campaign website, that that inclusion would also give undue weight).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)