Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Billionaire donors in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries


 * 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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Billionaire donors in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research. FEC filings (upon which this article is based) don't include a contributor's net worth. So the act of combing through FEC data to find people who are publicly known to be billionaires would constitute OR. The only non-primary reference used is a Forbes.com contributor article.

I believe this also fails WP:GNG, as there isn't much significant coverage by reliable sources about direct contributions from billionaires to presidential campaigns. Being a billionaire is an arbitrary distinction. An article like this would need secondary sources which show that a billionaire donating $2,800 (the maximum allowable amount) directly to a campaign is somehow more significant than a millionaire (or anyone else of any net worth) donating the same amount. Otherwise, this is just an excessive listing of unexplained statistics. Surachit (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Surachit (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Agree with nom that this is excessive statistics without sufficient context (e.g. that donation amount is limited). This is a POV subset of the massive dataset of all campaign contributions, and a Forbes contributor's list (i.e. without editorial oversight) that has apparently been deleted does not establish notability for this selection. Reywas92Talk 22:11, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'm not the biggest fan of this list and its BLP implications, but there are several sources that make this pass LISTN, such as this and this. Perhaps the content of this article can be dispersed to each of the respective campaigns' pages, which might be better for BLP/POV purposes but would mean that this would have to be outright deleted for lack of a redirect target. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC) (Changing my !vote to delete.)
 * , Newsmax is steaming hot partisan garbage. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that, sorry. There's also a Common Dreams article on the matter, but that's also partisan. There's also some LA Times things on the matter, but I still feel that this should be dispersed content-wise. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, this was the subject of a Forbes article so it is notable Faulty (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as improper synthesis. The Forbes article 1) doesn't seem to work (no scrollbar, no content), and 2) "sites/giacomotognini" suggests blog/opinion type content rather than journalism, and in any event, notability isn't the only problem with this page. ST47 (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis. There is one Forbes article that seems to address this in a non-synth way, but that's not enough to make this a notable topic, even if the article does work. Otherwise, it's reliance on FEC data to create a non-notable intersection of topics ("billionaires" and "2020 Dem primary candidates"). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of the main sources for this article, the Forbes article, has apparently been removed by Forbes.com for some reason. Most of the remaining sources are links to FEC filings which presumably establish that certain persons have donated to certain candidates, but don't establish that the donors are billionaires. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yesterday I would've leaned towards delete as the article lists plenty of people whose net worth is unknown. But suspicious activity by Forbes makes it more important for us to have an article or section about billionaire donors now. When a news source deletes a story without explanation, it is incumbent upon Wikipedia to fight for transparency. Connor Behan (talk) 14:38, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Wikipedia is not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I have no idea why that Forbes article went down. Maybe they decided it wasn't good journalism? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as synthesis, and a POV fork of Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. As others have pointed out, Forbes contributor articles are not reliable sources and are not useful for determining notability. If reliable sources do cover billionaire support for candidates, then that's something that can be covered in prose at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries or in individual campaign articles. Ralbegen (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, and given the poor quality of sourcing given BLP concerns. If I'm not mistaken (though I might be in any case) Bernie Sanders makes a point of not having any billionaire donors, but that should be in the article on his campaign and not this whole list. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Article clearly created for political point-scoring. Number   5  7  20:00, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Deletefor reasons cited by Muboshgu and Number 57Oldperson (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Though I believe the Forbes article is sufficient and notable, I do not believe the coverage of this topic is. Also, I searched for WP for similar articles about Republican billionaire donors and found nothing similar to this article. WP:GNGis fence-straddling for this one.TruthGuardians (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.