Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016


 * 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 keep. A possible merge of the two lists can be discussed on the relevant talk pages. Randykitty (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages:

There are multiple problems with this page. Much of it is sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts. Regardless of the sourcing, these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything. And the entire page comes off as promotional. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment as "creator". Due to its size, I split the original article into List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016 and List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016. I have no strong feelings one way or the other, except that I don't like massive articles. Brightgalrs  (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1] 06:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm adding that page to this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why not handle this at the Wikiproject level? Is there a reason you've tagged none of the other lists for this deletion? Are the similar lists for Obama, Sanders, Trump, Romney not promotional?Mpen320 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge these two lists back together and trim massively. The bar for inclusion must be something more than verifiability -- coverage in reliable secondary sources should be required, at the least. Otherwise, the premise is that the preference of every notable person in every national election is encyclopedic information, which is not feasible. Toohool (talk) 07:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and use inclusion criterion suggested and/or the requirement that if the endorsement was during the general campaign, the endorsement must have been controversial, unexpected, unprecedented, etc. All endorsements from federal political figures should be included. All endorsements made during the primaries should be included, too.&thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. &thinsp;&mdash; Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)&thinsp; 16:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge - The suggestion by makes sense to me. Should require at least one independent source (retaining the primary source would be a good idea, though, since we know news outlets get some endorsements wrong) and there's not much point to keeping separate lists. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both We cannot build lists from twitter posts. What I want to see is List of people who endorsed both Trump and Clinton at different times during the election cycle. Also, multiple non-notable people appear on the list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Are we prepared to make similar lists for every political campaign for US preisdent? And include on them all members of congress who endorsed a particular candidate? This is an invitation to insanity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I am not sure Wikipedia is the proper place to document lists of endorsements for political candidates (Notable endorsements covered in multiple independent sources, probably as part of the main campaign page). Is AfD the proper place to hold this discussion, though? --Enos733 (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:29, 6 September 2017 (UTC) *Delete - Don't merge. You would be moving the WP:PRIMARY and overall poor sourcing issue to one large article. Unless there is WP:RS that makes these endorsements particularly unique, this is just a list composed of WP:SYNTH and trivial name-drops.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both per JPL. Candidate endorsements generally don't mean much; the exceptions (if any) are few and far between. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I've also listed Trump's list. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, most sources are primary or unreliable (like Youtube). Unless there is an RS for every single endorsement listed, there's no reason to keep this. Place these endorsements in their respective endorsers' articles. Also delete the political endorsements list. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge in agreement with what was said by Toohool - Tvlover19 (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge back to one list, based only on what is covered in reliable sources.LM2000 (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- no need for a merge; largely collection of trivia cited to primary sources. Concur that "Candidate endorsements generally don't mean much", especially from non politicians. The other list could be dealt with separately, but I'd lean "Delete" on that too. Or, at the very least, significantly trim (i.e. to politicians holding office at the time of the endorsement). K.e.coffman (talk) 05:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep rationales are terribly flaws but we need a broader discussion so I struck my vote. It would be silly to see this article deleted but not the rest.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  J 947(c) (m) 05:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 *  Merge  : it is issue": reference was sourced to people's personal Twitter accounts, these two articles should be merged together.  D8jang (talk) 11:14, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that endorsement lists are encyclopedic. Endorsements are an important part of a campaign. Oprah's endorsement of Obama is considered one of the key things that got him elected. I think the crossover support shown in the article is also notable. I understand I am supposed to assume good faith, but the fact that this list has been marked for deletion around the same time Clinton's name began popping up in the media again is hard to dismiss as a coincidence. There are 31 lists in Category:United States presidential election endorsements, none of which have been marked for deletion. As there are 31 such lists and the articles here focus on the supposed futility of lists, consensus should be reached at the WikiProject level.Mpen320 (talk) 14:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that endorsements can be notable. However, the question that should be raised is if all endorsements are notable. This subject is a collection (mere list) of endorsements, without any context or discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why not simply delete endorsements that are not notable? Why not add why certain endorsements are notable (a large number of crossover Republican officials)? Wikipedia's policy has almost always been to improve rather than delete. Almost all the individuals have Wikipedia articles so the figures themselves are notable. Also, can someone answer why List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign political endorsements, 2016 redirects here? I am just curious why it doesn't have its own page?Mpen320 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Should I nominate List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 for deletion? List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements from state, local and territory officials, 2008 and List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008? PartyPresident (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded.Mpen320 (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep If this page is grounds for deletion, 5 or 10 different pages for a bunch of different campaigns are also grounds for deletion, and I don't see them being nominated. This is being nominated solely because of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. KingForPA (talk) 15:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I disagree that endorsements are not important or that information regarding them is not worth keeping record of (whether or not Wikipedia is the correct venue might be a separate question. Three things I would like to point out: 1) Superdelegates (and therefore endorsements) played a big role in both the 2008 and 2016 Democratic primaries -- particularly in shaping the early narratives in each campaign season regarding the delegate math; 2) Endorsements are not just about the person who receives them -- they also represent part the political history of those who endorse; and 3) Endorsements of others are often listed in biographical pages -- for instance, if you look at the wikipedia entry for Nina Turner her endorsement of Bernie Sanders is listed in the first paragraph of the entry (the same is true of Tulsi Gabbard's biographical entry). Regarding the last point, a determination that endorsements are not noteworthy would seemingly raise the question of whether all references to them should be eliminated site-wide (including on biographical pages).2602:306:3B1C:9060:283D:F1D7:3E1:DBAF (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Someone has just now added the Bernie Sanders list of endorsements for consideration for deletion in response, but that doesn't address what is happening in this effort to erase Hillary Clinton history online. Hillary Clinton's historic nomination to head a national ticket of a major party, and her winning the popular vote is women's history.  Adding Sanders' rather listless endorsements page to being also considered for deletion as well doesn't change the fact that Hillary Clinton's candidacy has been targeted out for online erasing.  Her pages are women's history and it's not in anyone's best interest to haggle it into oblivion long after the fact.  Whatever relevance this haggling over individual entries may have had was when the campaign was active, before votes were cast, to influence individual voters.  As they stand now, her candidacy pages are women's history and cannot be deleted without seriously damaging the historical record of her candidacy that these Wikipedia pages provide.
 * Keep. Endorsements in major political elections such as for the American presidency are notable and widely covered by reliable sources. Any issues about individual entries at the page is a matter for editing and talk page discussion (e.g. removing hypothetical entries not even sourced to a verified primary source from the endorser), not deletion. In any case, deletion of endorsement pages would be better done as a decision via RFC than through individual AFDs. I would also oppose merging the two lists simply because of navigability. Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep If someone has a problem with some, or even a number of the endorsements on this page, go ahead and delete them and the whole issue can be hashed out in discussion. That isn't really a reason to delete the entire page. If through such deletions the page is trimmed back significantly, merge the information into the main campaign page. I really don't understand the argument that "these endorsements generally aren't relevant to anything". Endorsements are a major part of any national level political campaign, especially for the Presidency. That isn't debatable, it's just the objective reality of American politics. Deleting this information would adversely affect Wikipedia's coverage of the 2016 Presidential election as a whole. Pstanton (talk) 19:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Keep or Merge. I too suspect the motives for deleting this information. Lists of endorsements seems to be well accepted practice for other candidates and I see no good justification to remove or to target this page. Inarius (talk) 19:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Journalists, academics, political researchers, etc., all find this information invaluable. That's what makes Wikipedia so special -- comprehensive, time-consuming research found no place else. Siberian Husky (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There has been such articles for every candidate for several cycles. Why is Hillary being singled out for erasure? Most voting to delete on this page are not supporting the deletion of Bernie or Trump's pages, and Obama, McCain, Romney, or even irrelevant nobodies like Jill Stein's endorsements aren't even being considered for deletion. Clearly this is not generally considered an issue. There should be some semblance of consistency. If endorsements are not considered important enough for a page, then there shouldn't be any for anyone. --Rmdsc (talk) 20:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge We should not be censoring info. SonOfThornhill (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Why has this been flagged for deletion and not other endorsement pages? Because of a vendetta against Hillary Clinton. This information is valuable and should be kept.
 * Keep I'd argue inherent notability for endorsements of politicians running for President of the US, they are a part of the fabric of American politics. Endorsements are solicited and coveted by campaigns, and routinely covered by the media. TheValeyard (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – I agree with quite strongly; and on a side note I will note that Trump's article has been kept.  J 947(c) (m)  04:12, 21 September 2017 (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.