Talk:Theresa Greenfield

Untitled
NOTE: The subject was determined to be notable and this article was authorized for re-creation by the meta-discussion reviewing the "Articles for Creation" and "Deletion Review" discussions, at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive327.

The Issue
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.

Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?

What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I also feel quite at a loss. was correct in that requesting unprotection at RFPP is an end-around the AFC process. I throw up my hands as well. At this point, I either stick with my initial action, which may have been in error, or I publish a draft that has been declined by a third party reviewer? I don't like my options here. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was certainly not my intention to end-run any process when making my two unprotect requests. Instead, I am operating under the understanding that a proper AfC process requires that the redirect be unprotected, otherwise there is no way any Draft could possibly be accepted via AfC. And in fact it is the WP:INVOLVED administrator's protection of the redirect that end-runs the AfC process. Also, just to note I don't have a dog in this fight: the only edit I made to the draft was to add the draft article template to it.  I am only trying (and I too am a 3rd-party AfC reviewer) to help other editors (who seem to me to be quite competent) follow the correct process (which is not WP:DRV, and Robert, you should know that by now) to get what now looks like pretty high quality, and 100% suitable content into the encyclopedia.  UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that vexatious litigation is an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its or its, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its . Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
 * As to the argument that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability
 * I will note that I have read WP:ARBAP2 & believe I am making comments about the draft's substance that is in accord with that decision. Peaceray (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:BLP1E applies here at all. An election campaign that takes a year is not really "1 event," she is not a low profile individual, and the "event" is a significant one in which her role is absolutely central. Even if the article was complete garbage it would still obviously be about a notable individual and should not be deleted or redirected. john k (talk) 12:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. This should be an article.  Even if Greenfield loses the election she will be forever notable. Oakshade (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, point 3 of BLP1E makes it clearly not a relevant policy here (added bolding):
 * If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.
 * The election is high-profile and and competitive. Her role as one of the two most important people in it is very substantial. DemonDays64 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just seeing this nightmare today, and am super confused why this is such a discussion, she clearly needs an article. The reference section on that draft is full of WP:RS. Who is standing in the way here? Can I help?-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 22:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , see Administrators%27_noticeboard for more information. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , would you be willing to explain what you see as the difference between Greenfield's notability and that of Troy Nehls, whose article you created a few months ago? Thanks, Js2112 (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I've been reading through that AN topic and the earlier AfD, and this is what it seems like happened to me. Back in May and June, it was really debatable whether we needed a separate Theresa Greenfield article, or if the article on the ongoing election was sufficient. You and others took a hard stand against notability, which I can understand at the time. But now its late October, the facts on the ground have shifted, the media attention to article's subject has exponentially increased, but you and other parties aren't reevaluating your position on the situation. It's an escalation of commitment fallacy, you can't alter course because you think that means you were wrong all along, and you don't want to feel that way. I totally respect your years of work as a great administrator, I just think the subject's situation is not what it was when you nominated it for deletion five months ago.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 14:31, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The position has been reevaluated with the discussion at AN. It did not indicate any great desire publish an article of dubious notability on a political candidate who has not been elected to office and had no notability prior to running. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Nehls has been elected to a political office. His sourcing also goes back years, from before his congressional campaign. His notability is established outside of his run for Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , He's been elected to the office of county sheriff, which I would say does not qualify him for notability. The threshold for politicians is generally election to an office in the state government.  In terms of general notability, I only see two articles on Nehls that aren't related in some way to running for Congress: one from 2012 on his first campaign for sheriff, and one from 2013 about the beginning of his tenure as sheriff.  Greenfield has received orders of magnitude more coverage, and there has been nothing notable about Nehls as a sheriff. Js2112 (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with what you have written there. Nehls isn't relevant to Greenfield anyway. Stick to the subject at hand. And you're not going to convince me, since there are so many people on the AN thread that disagree with you and have formed a consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just trying to understand the general principle. I recognize that there is not a consensus in favor of an article on Greenfield right now, and consequently I have not continued to push on that (although I don't have to think that the majority is correct).  I am legitimately confused about how someone could regard Nehls as notable and Greenfield as not, so I would like to understand that for the future.  You have vastly more experience at Wikipedia than I do, so I thought you might be able to explain what I'm missing. Thanks, Js2112 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see any argument here. Greenfield has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and easily clears the GNG. BLP1E obviously doesn't apply here. Any argument against an article on Greenfield requires not looking at what the policies actually say. john k (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , she is running for a Senate race that could decide the Senate and the future of American democracy, and yet she isn't relevant. That is absolutely insane.--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:06, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a bit hyperbolic. Nobody said she isn't "relevant", just that she doesn't meet WP:GNG. BLP1E does apply, as the event is the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It isn't hyperbolic in the least. Based on your answers, WP:GNG is clearly broken, and needs to be changed.

--Kew Gardens 613 (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggesting that this one election could decide ... the future of American democracy is hyperbole and we are better off without it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm so confused, how are we looking at the same topic here? Is this just bias against Iowa? Is their news not important enough? Moboshgu, I'm sorry, but you're totally out of line here. Take a step away from this topic, you're twisting policy and Wikilawyering because you can't admit that the subject's situation has changed, and you're now in the wrong. You're abusing admin privilege here, and I'm not sure you should be active on this page.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 02:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Assume good faith. Nobody is biased against Iowa that I am aware of. I did not "twist policy" or abuse my adminship. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right, I'm sorry, that wasn't in good faith. Other users said it better than me, however, that it was a very limited reading WP:BLP1E without attention to the significant coverage. Anyway, then Jimbo stepped in and now she has an article.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 01:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you, I appreciate the apology. We can agree to disagree on BLP1E, as interpretations vary. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The Issue
"Here we go again". First, since I am being pinged, what if anything does anyone want me, User:Robert McClenon, to do? In case you haven't noticed, I couldn't accept the draft even if I wanted to accept it (which I do not). The redirect page is protected. Am I being asked to file a Request for Page Unprotection? You already did that. Second, I have read the policies and guidelines also. I am referring to how the policies and guidelines are applied. If you want to change the usual interpretation or application of the policies and guidelines, address that in a policy forum. Third, since you say that the situation has changed since the last Deletion Review, you have the right to request another Deletion Review. The title was not listed at Deletion Review Perennial Requests, although that was discussed. You have the right to request another deletion review. It is likely to be viewed as vexatious litigation.

Fourth, why does it make so much difference to get the article at this time? I know one possible answer, which is that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Democratic Party can organize the Senate. I know. We do have a special provision here in Wikipedia for dealing with efforts to use Wikipedia for a socially desirable purpose that is not the same as maintaining an encyclopedia. I know. Do I need to read the riot act?

What do you want me to do? Where is the next stop? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * With respect, I'd like a different reviewer to review this, as you seem to have developed a preconceived notion that the article can never be accepted; understandable since it's been resubmitted without significant improvement so many times. But a lot of work seems to have gone into it between the last decline and now, and if you're not going to look at it and just chastise and threaten the submitter, then I'd like to give someone who hasn't already reviewed this to take a look. Courtesy ping . Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree. I think Robert and I can best support this situation by recusing ourselves and allowing someone else, uninvolved, knowledgeable with AP2, to make a call. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Ivanvector. I think it’s best that we have a different reviewer to review this. Robert keeps rejecting this article despite the fact that we have put a lot of effort into this article. I would like to see a different reviewer take this article into consideration for inclusion to Wikipedia User:AdamT777 (talk) 17:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that vexatious litigation is an unfair characterization. The article was clearly not ready on its or its, & was arguably close to being ready for prime time at its . Since the last declension, the draft has gone through 94 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown. We have addressed the notability concerns, as I believe is evident by any plain reading of WP:BASIC, WP:BLP1E, & WP:BIO1E.
 * As to the argument that it may be argued that whether she has her own Wikipedia article could swing a few votes in Iowa, and therefore could make the difference in the election, it can be conversely argued that continued suppression of the article would be of benefit of Ernst. Both sides of that argument should be quickly discarded as not relevant, & we should return to being WP:NEUTRAL & evaluating the merits of the draft on its notability.
 * I will note that I have read WP:ARBAP2 & believe I am making comments about the draft's substance that is in accord with that decision.
 * I am hoping that we can get a fresh set of reviewer eyes on this. Peaceray (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I continue to believe, as I have stated many times at AfD, that much of the information in this draft can be incorporated into the prose of 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. --Enos733 (talk) 22:43, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with User:Enos733 that we can incorporate all the information in this draft into the 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa. I believe that Theresa Greenfield is notable enough to have its own article. She has received a lot of media coverage because it is a competitive race. I think we should make Theresa Greenfield it’s own article rather than put it into the article about the senate election. AdamT777 (talk) 23:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Peaceray for the historical recap. The article looks quite solid now, though I can see how it was not, in the past). – SJ +  01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon, it could've also been argued that ensuring there was no Greenfield article, that could swing a few votes in Iowa since they couldn't find an article about her and yet could find one on her opponent, and therefore could make the difference in the election, and therefore could make the difference as to whether the Republican Party can continue to organize the Senate. Now that the article is existing, instead of un-founded speculation as to what a WP does for an election, I have a much better idea: Keep political speculation out of the editing process. Make sure WP is neutral when discussing and editing articles on politicians. Oakshade (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

More Comments
Okay, okay. If you didn't want me to review the draft again, you didn't need to ping me. You don't need to ping me just to tell me that you disagree and that you want me to go away. I am not reviewing the draft.

It is not true that I kept rejecting the article. I didn't reject the article. I declined it twice, after User:Bkissin declined it once. I didn't reject it, largely because it will need to be accepted if she wins the November election. Declining a draft and rejecting a draft are two different actions.

The redirect is still protected, and if the next reviewer decides that the draft should be accepted, they will still need to go either to Deletion Review a fourth time, or to Requests for Page Unprotection, or to DRV and then to RFPP.

I will allow another reviewer to review it. You didn't need to ping me if you don't want me to review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Holy moly! What did I walk into here! FWIW, I agree with and those who continue to decline this draft. This happens every election season and it is not our role to be a voter information service. Feel free to talk to the folks at [ballotpedia.org ballotpedia] for that. Candidates are not automatically notable, the news coverage is entirely campaign based and probably won't pass the ten year test, etc. No need to ping me or reply to this comment, because unless she wins in November, my opinion will not change. Bkissin (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Robert. For my part I didn't mean to imply that any of your past actions with respect to this draft were incorrect nor malicious, nor that the draft should be accepted simply because of the amount of material that was added to it. IMO if the draft is accepted then there is no need to go through DRV again, and you've got at least two admins watching the page now so RFPP shouldn't really be necessary either. We're not supposed to be a bureaucracy, we're supposed to be creating an encyclopedia, and if a neutral reviewer thinks this article is ready then I will remove/modify the protection, let's say per WP:IAR. As long as doesn't object, I suppose. If not then it can stay here, or some material might belong in the redirect target, and we may look at the situation again after November.
 * (after edit conflict) Well, there you have it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How am I not a neutral reviewer? Unless you are saying, since a reviewer either has to accept, decline or reject, there can be no neutral reviewers. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , this is all playing out at AN now and I will abide by any result. I'll even be the one to unprotect it if the consensus there is clear that it should be done. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Ivanvector - I am not annoyed or offended, and I did not think that you were implying that I had done anything wrong. One side of me is relieved that you went to WP:AN, because I felt that I was being dumped on by advocates, and I do think that the authors of the current version of the draft are soapboxing.  I declined the draft twice because of my interpretation of how policy and guidelines have almost always been applied.  At this point my concern is not that my judgment will be reversed, because I am willing to see the policy interpreted, but that the policy issue will be ignored when the election is over.  I am not annoyed to have the matter taken to some other forum than AFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

She is not notable, but her candidacy may be
I commented at the AN thread about this, but it probably wasn't the right place; maybe WT:N is, for the general case. In any case, the notability criteria for an event are different than for a person, which is why Death of Sandra Bland is notable as a WP:BIO1E, and Sandra Bland is not. For this specific case, I kind of agree that Theresa Greenfield is not notable, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield may be, as a WP:BIO1E. I tried to make this point at AN, and the response there was,

which is a fair point. But I think the case can be made that the topic "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" is notable in its own right, however, since WP:AN is not an article-improvement forum, it is not the right place to carry out an investigation into it, and this page is. That said, I am not *that* interested in this topic, so I just want to lay out my train of thought here and hope someone else will pick it up, if interested. I may not be back, so if this helps, great.

From my read of the guideline, I can see some parts that argue against such a new topic, and others in favor of it. In the "against" camp, I'd list this: "In considering whether to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and of the individual's role within it should both be considered. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." So, given that, and if we assume that she's not notable on her own per previous discussions above, then since we already have an article on the "event" (i.e., the Senate race), we don't need one on the person. But, that portion does not argue specifically against the creation of a new article whose topic is a narrower, more focused event, which may also be notable in its own right. However later, that same section also says this, which has a different focus: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." Greenfield's role in the 2020 Senate race is very clearly a large one. But, does it argue for the creation of a more narrowly focused one than the existing one, or not? It seems to be mute on that question. The next quotation won't settle the question, but argues that it might be compliant to create one. The illustrative example they use is unfortunate in the context of the present topic, because the example deals with political assassination; but let's try to ignore that and just deal with what the example is trying to tell us about notability criteria, and ignore its macabre domain: "The assassins of major political leaders, such as Gavrilo Princip, fit into this category, as indicated by the large coverage of the event in reliable sources that devotes significant attention to the individual's role." I would say that Greenfield's candidacy fits this category, too, as indicated by voluminous and ubiquitous coverage of the event in reliable sources that devote major attention to Greenfield's role, and not merely to the fact that it's a "2020 Iowa Senate race". Accordingly, I would say that Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield meets the criteria set forth in the WP:BIO1E section of the Notability policy for creation of a BIO1E-style article named after an event and including the person's name, a la Death of Sandra Bland. One more quotation of policy, just to make sure: the BIO1E section goes on to give an example where a separate article may not be necessary: "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. For example, George Holliday, who videotaped the Rodney King beating, redirects to Rodney King." This last point, perhaps counterintuitively, is what persuaded me that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" *may*, in fact, be a notable topic according to the guideline. Why? Because the analog to "George Holliday" in this case, is "Jordanna Zeigler", Theresa Greenfield's campaign manager. If you search for her, you'll find a decent number of reliable sources mentioning her, including: Politico, TIME, cbs2Iowa, Globe Gazette, Iowa Starting Line, The Guardian, Iola Register, and so on. However, it's not significant coverage, and it all relates to Greenfield's candidacy. This tells me that "Jordanna Zeigler" is not significant enough for an article; she is Theresa Greenfield's "George Holliday". If anyone created a page with that title, clearly it would have to be a redirect.

But there is an overwhelming amount of coverage of Theresa Greenfield's Senate candidacy, with numerous articles where her candidacy is the entire focus of the article and named after her, or a major part of the article. I think therefore that "Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield" meets the bar of WP:BIO1E.

As to how to deal with the overlap with the currently existing article 2020 United States Senate election in Iowa, I think standard Summary style guidelines should apply. That is, most of the detail about the *candidacy* should be in the new article, as child, and more focused on Greenfield, and that should be summarized in the existing article, which would be the "parent" article, per Summary style. Thanks, and good luck! Mathglot (talk) 05:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

"She is not notable, but her candidacy may be" - then the article should stand and all that's left is a dumb argument about naming. Artw (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks Robert and Muboshgu for laying things out clearly above. (Not pinging them because of the discussion above that being pinged here was stressful; there's nothing further to be done here just now.)  Mathglot You're right that the candidacy is clearly notable and has a great deal of reliable national coverage.  And Artw yes it seems the questions are primarily how to name the article, and what to do with redirects in the main namespace (notably: where to link Greenfield's name when it first appears in other articles, and whether to make it easy or hard for people looking to contribute to a bio to figure out where to do so.) – SJ +  01:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I largely agree with, and even with most of your comment that it's about naming. But in my view, that's hardly "a dumb argument", because the title determines the topic, and if there is consensus that Theresa Greenfield is not a notable topic, but Senate candidacy of Theresa Greenfield is notable, then the upshot is that if you try to move this article to Main space under the current title, it will get deleted or redirected, whereas if you rename it to the longer title, the article will remain, and you can continue to expand it. That's a pretty big difference, so I don't see that as a dumb argument. But yeah, it is about naming, and if you want to see this article survive in main space, I think that's pretty much your only path to that outcome; at least, I don't see another possibility.
 * Remember that Notability is a property of the *topic* of an article, not its content. The exact same exact article may get deleted under one title, and kept under a different one. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's pedandty and silliness, someone notable for being a candidate is notable. Artw (talk) 02:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on this, this is a pedantic argument that is doing Wikipedia as a whole a disservice. Other threads have mentioned that a suggested search term for Greenfield is to her non-existant Wikipedia page, from people trying to find out about her, so Wikipedia and Wikipedians have a responsibility to ensure that this article exists for those trying to find out about Greenfield. There are multiple examples of perennial candidates that are both affiliated with major and minor United States parties, or just as independents, that have had less press coverage than Greenfield has had in the last several months. These articles are not being contested, and are not being suggested to be converted into "Candidacy of" articles. Cmahns (talk) 16:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a backward argument. "People are searching for it" isn't a criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia. "Wikipedians are responsible for a topic's existence" isn't a criterion for inclusion. There is no requirement for Wikipedia to cover every topic that exists. And to bring up WP:OTHERSTUFF? You know very well that each article is evaluated independently regardless of what other crap might exist on Wikipedia; the same argument would also apply to draftify or delete those other articles, rather than promote this one to main space. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm afraid that in Wikipedia-world, "someone notable for being a candidate is not necessarily notable." This is very clear if you read WP:NOTABILITY.  That's why we have Death of Sandra Bland and not Sandra Bland. Wikipedia's definition of "notability" is not the same as the English sense of the word. If you want to change that, please raise a discussion at WT:Notability, and try to get your view accepted by consensus, and written into the policy. But as long as the Notability policy is written the way it is, the title matters, and Greenfield is not notable per se, but may be notable as under the longer title. In any case, trying to get the article under the current title accepted, is a fool's errand, so it depends what you want. Do you want to see this article accepted, or not?  If yes, a name change is, in my opinion, your only possible path to that result. Arguing here that you disagree with WP:N won't change anything. Mathglot (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Never mind; I see that this is moot now, as the article has been moved from Draft: to mainspace, per section #Towards closure at WP:ANI. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Is Tom Brady's page listed as "Football Career of Tom Brady"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 (talk • contribs)

No policy-based opinion on the notability of this subject, but the history of our article, particularly AN's contentious discussion about it (thread at time of writing), including input from the Founder seat (1, 2), has now been reported in Slate and the Washington Post. "" Not really sure what this means for the article. <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Policy Positions Section
Is the section on her policy positions--and the language used--too in-the-weeds and/or too favorable towards the candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.169.197.8 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The material added in this edit clearly violates WP:PROMO. KidAd   talk  18:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely too in the weeds; only a few parts had indepedent cites. I kept a few lines that were sourced.  – SJ +  20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Endorsements
A list like this is not very useful or discriminate. Adding to the paragraph that provides a brief summary of the most notable endorsements (or statistics about categories of endorsements) can be fine. For instance, Axne isn't mentioned currently. – SJ + 20:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)