Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements


 * 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. WP:SNOW. Although the delete !votes make some good points, there would need to be a broader discussion as to whether this type of list should be allowed. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is basically a list of Democrat office holders. Wikipedia is NOT a directory.

The same goes for all lists in Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected: This is basically a list of Democrat office holders and a small proportion of other people who [checks notes] say they intend to vote democrat. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions.  Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong Oppose This article is at least 25% Republicans and probably doesn’t even contain 1% of registered Democrats in the US not to mention the international politicians. I find it funny this article would even be nominated for deletion. Don’t you guys have some other, smaller, less notable articles to delete than one that is constantly updating and corresponds to the upcoming election? We do this for almost every election to keep track of the endorsements. The fact that anyone thinks this is an article that belongs here is insane. Plus we have articles for 3 other 2020 candidates. If we deleted the one with the most, it would seem as if we favor the other 3 parties more. Start with Howie Hawkins and if that works out then maybe try something bigger. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 12:15, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * " The fact that anyone thinks this is an article that belongs here is insane" I wouldn't have used such a derogatory term, but I agree it doesn't belong here on Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have interpreted Lima's comment as "here" referring to Wikipedia, but rather "here" referring to this AfD. And most people participating in this AfD disagree with the premise of this AfD. —MelbourneStar ☆ talk 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I think there is no reason to have any such free standing articles period. Such long lists are not of use to many people. If the endorsement of Biden is notable to the person it can be included in the article on them, and if it is truly notable to the Biden campaign it can be included in the article on that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW close. In any event, deletion of all pages within Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements is going to require wider participation than a 7-day AfD discussion. feminist (talk) 13:44, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep no wikipedia isn't a directory but it does keep notable lists. --Investigatory (talk) 13:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Very curious as to why a page that has been getting directly worked on in regards to an upcoming election, and updated constantly, is being considered for deletion in this manner. A good chunk of this list includes a mixture of Republicans, independents, and everything in-between. It has more non-party endorsements then any other candidate page ever has.Tipsyfishing (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and speedy WP:SNOW close per above. It's a notable list (see reasons listed by others above). Paintspot Infez (talk) 14:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Precedent for keeping this type of page for major party presidential nominees. I agree that lists of endorsements may border as promotional and I would prefer prose and context over lists, but this is a notable (and encyclopedic) list. --Enos733 (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * delete Even though this year is unusual, given prominent endorsements from GOP and conservative sources, nobody is well-served by this raw data dump of what is effectively primary-source material except people trying to increase their edit counts. I'm certain that it is possible to write something actually useful, such as citing commentary on the unusual patterns—commentary, I would add, that establishes notability, as opposed to just routine political reporting. Mangoe (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gee fizz. Delete, and yes I'm fine deleting the rest of them too. Good on the...treasurer of Douglas County, Nebraska for endorsing Biden, and where would we be without the political commentary of Nikki Sixx?
 * This is the very definition of an indiscriminate collection of anything and everything anyone could find a source for.  G M G  talk  17:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a list and is doing its function properly. I see no reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WakandaForever188 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep Almost all of the entries are bluelinked, so the list is serving a legitimate navigational function for existing articles. Nor is it a directory of Democratic office-holders, as it includes Cindy McCain and 177 other Republicans or now-Independent-former-Republicans. There are probably discussions to be had about the standards of sourcing and inclusion, but the concept of the list itself is fine, and the implementation isn't so terrible that it needs to be burned. AfD is not cleanup, etc. I also concur with the point above that deletion of all pages within Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements is going to require wider participation than a single AfD. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem is that I don't see how you can have standards for inclusion that aren't entirely arbitrary. Also noting this is currently the ninth largest article on the entire project.  G M G  talk  19:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was the largest (over 700Kb) until I split out two sections (each over 100Kb) into separate articles today. Even without those sections, it has (at a rough count) 1,700 entries. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As someone who has mostly written about things that are a century old or older, that's all kinda gross.  G M G  talk  22:48, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep for now but open to a centralized discussion about this type of list in general if others support such a discussion. I'll need some convincing though, since I'm leaning to "keep" for this "type of list" as well.  However, as long as we are having this type of list, this page certainly should be kept. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and WP:SNOW close There are 100's of Republicans and Independents on this list, A simple 30 second search would confirm this,Animaileditor (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and WP:SNOW close Lists like these have existed since 2008 and Biden's seems to be the most unique to the extent it includes many Republicans and Independents. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 18:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Important to note that a growing number of International officials, some officials who are in a Party that does not have his policy views (along with 178 Republicans, before US House/State House was split, the number was reaching 300, a number of Independents) also endorsed Biden, this is more than a "Obvious Democratic Member list" Animaileditor (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Agreed. Plus, isn’t Rashida Tlaib a notable democrat? She hasn’t endorsed him. Neither have senator Maria Cantwell or governor John Bel Edwards. The article most definitely is what it says it is, a list of Joe Biden endorsements. It includes anyone who has endorsed and does not include anyone who has not. Multiple times I have vetted the entries and removed those who have just had financial support or attended a rally. The list is probably 99% or more accurate. If needed, it can be edited to remove those who are not properly added, not deleted in its entirety. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Strong “Keep.” This makes as much sense as deleting Donald Trump’s Wikipedia list of 2020 endorsements though that list is much shorter than Biden’s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8004:2A80:7425:79E:EE11:5D44 (talk) 14:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC) What is the well-argued policy? I have yet to hear it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:807:8004:2A80:48DE:2C5F:4128:32B0 (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and SNOW close per all of the keep reasons above.  // Timothy ::  talk  22:01, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsure The discussion should be had for all articles of this type, not just one. Category:United States presidential election endorsements I don't see any value in any of them.  Do people decide to vote on someone because their favorite celebrity or an existing elected official they voted for supports them?  What is the purpose of these list?   D r e a m Focus  03:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  D r e a m Focus , they actually do. And to be honest, I’m very interested as well as many other editors about this topic. I want to know who will be endorsing/voting for Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Not that interested in Howie Hawkins, but you get the point. I can not find any other place that has all of a candidate’s endorsements condensed like this. That’s what Wikipedia is for, creating an encyclopedia of relevant information and providing it to the reader. “Campaign endorsements” is a topic many people are interested in and want to know about. Or, if not, keep it for me! I know I’m very interested. While I can’t speak on behalf of anyone else, I’m sure others would agree. If you’re not interested or don’t like it just ignore it, no one’s forcing you to add campaign endorsements or even look at them. Heck, if you’re so opposed to them existing then why are you even commenting here? Just a thought. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 04:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * So this article exist to tell people to vote for someone because a famous person they like said to, don't bother looking up information about the candidates and voting for themselves. Seems rather bad thing to have.  But if the news media covers it, it passes the general notability guidelines.   D r e a m Focus  16:13, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 *  D r e a m Focus , that’s where you’re misinterpreting it. The article does not encourage or even support voting for any candidate or even voting at all. It simply states the people who have endorsed this candidate, which is a point of interest for many, like me. I’m not eligible to vote, but I still think this is interesting information relating to the election. Overall, we can’t tell people what to do with the information, for all I know any article has the potential to persuade people to do anything. It’s just information, and it’s properly added to our encyclopediaLima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and close per WP:SNOW. Sections and subsections 12 through to 18 don't refer to what the nominator has described. —<b style="color:#E22">Mel</b><b style="color:#F20">bourne</b><b style="color:#F73">Star</b> ☆ <sup style="color:#407">talk 05:16, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep and speedy close per SNOW per all other editors. Andy Mabbett doesn't know that there are many Democratic presidential endorsements that have separate article, as well as Republicans and other candidates. Can you request deleting all presidential endorsement article? I believe it is not. 36.65.35.154 (talk) 05:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't attempt to speak for me; you clearly lack the insight to do so correctly, Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep it WP:CIVIL Limpice (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My comment is perfectly civil; attempting to speak for me, not so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:LISTN. So do dozens if not hundreds of other articles on U.S. politics, of course, but that isn't an argument for keeping this one. The list also seems to make a lot of claims about living people that are not clearly supported by the sources cited: this LA Times piece, for example, is cited 18 times but the majority of names mentioned are not described as endorsing Biden. I wouldn't ordinarily bother to participate in an AfD where the result seems so clear, but I'm doing so in the hope that this leads to a broader discussion of the appropriateness of this sort of material, which a more unanimous outcome here would probably make less likely. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, prevent WP:SNOW. These lists are relevant, to a degree. Coltsfan (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Absolutely no reason to delete this. Jon698 (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This AfD is a waste of everyone's time. The list clearly meets WP:LISTN - if you Google search "Biden endorsements" you will find hundreds of high quality sources discussing the topic. – Anne drew  22:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, speedy close per WP:SNOW - Nominating this page and not Trump's is honestly hilarious and just shows this to be a case of using deletion nominations as a partisan battleground, to say the bare minimum. This nomination is a complete joke, and making things up about the article's contents just makes it all the worse. KingForPA (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point the original proposer is just arguing with people who disagree with his analysis. Perhaps someone should close this (seeing as consensus is pretty clear) before it gets out of hand. KingForPA (talk) 20:11, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * With due sense of irony; no I am not. Your "partisan battleground" claim is equally bogus. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't explained why you nominated just the Biden page instead of all four (Trump, Hawkins, and Jorgensen), and until you do that I dunno if anyone's gonna buy that. KingForPA (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets general notability as a notable list. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This seems to meet WP:GNG, is under active development, and of significant interest at the moment. I'm particularly impressed by the quality of the sourcing to meet the verifiability criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep and Close per WP:SNOW - Paperworkorange (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and immediate close per WP:SNOW, as per KingForPA; Nominating this and not Donald Trump's equivalent article is nothing more than a sad and vain attempt at influencing the election. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 19:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Arkell v. Pressdram applies. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett, you can’t claim there was no bias here. There are hundreds of sections with endorsements (every governor senate and house race) and two others with endorsement sections (Jorgensen and Hawkins). The fact that Biden’s article was chosen was clearly biased. I’m not going to say it is pro Trump but it is definitely anti Biden. Keeping an endorsement article for Howie Hawkins but not Biden would show there’s a real bias which is not something needed on Wikipedia Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can and do claim there was no bias here. Look: There was no bias here. HTH. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Telling an editor to fuck off without even having it in you to say it plainly. Class act! KingForPA (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you? how rude. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's clear that the list is not merely a directory of Democrats, which is the basis for the nom. And while I don't want to get all WP:WAX, it's clear the norm in Wikipedia has been to have these articles for quite some time, and should not be tossed away on a simple AFD naming only one article. The casual inclusion of "The same goes for all lists in Category:Lists of United States presidential candidate endorsements" is way too under-the-radar for dispose of fifty-some articles in one fell swoop. If this is to be considered, it ought to be done much more carefully, with an RFC and notification on the talk pages of all the affected articles. TJRC (talk) 00:51, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep per WP:SNOW as the most blatantly obvious LISTN pass in history and per WP:POINT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not even sure why this was nominated in the first place. TovarishhUlyanov (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I was surprised that this page was nominated for deletion. Although the page has ballooned in size since I created it in July 2019, I disagree with the premise that the page is "basically a list of Democrat office holders". Inclusion on the page is dependent on an endorsement for Mr. Biden and is not simply a list of Democratic officeholders. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep and Immediate Close per WP:SNOW it is obvious that the author of this was biased and is now actively hostile to editors weighing in. Limpice (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Bullshit, on both counts. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please Keep it WP:CIVIL and if you have a reasonable argument why it's not I'd be willing to hear it Limpice (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the hostility, exclaiming "bullshit" at an editor you disagree with is certainly hostile and is arguably a WP:PA Limpice (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Had I done so; you may have a point. My description of your dual claims as bullshit was neither uncivil nor incorrect; nor was it a personal attack. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Please explain how "Had I done so;" and "Bullshit" are not contradictory? Limpice (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk to Andy, you clearly have some bias against Biden, you are hostile to those who disagree with you, and now you are swearing. I recommend that you simply ignore endorsement pages on Wikipedia and move on. I will be deleting the suggestion of deletion on the page as it is silly. If enough others think endorsement pages should be deleted then that will be discussed and happen. Since you are only advocating for deleting I would recommend you stay away from this subject. This article isn’t bothering you, right? Just ignore it and those who edit and create endorsement pages can make the decision on whether they should be kept. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 21:33, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "you clearly have some bias against Biden" You're welcome to present what you believe passes for evidence for this remarkable assertion (we could all do with a laugh, in these difficult times); but let me assure you that your claim also is utter bullshit. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk to Andy, after doing a little background research it appears that you are not in favor of Biden and don’t even live in the United States. You wouldn’t think it would be fair if I advocated deleting the page on the Conservative Party (UK) but not that for the Labour Party (UK) or the Scottish National Party, right? If you want to advocate deletion of endorsement pages, then please do that as an rfc or arbitration somewhere away from any current endorsement pages or on all of them. Or you could just let this go. Is a page on Joe Biden’s endorsements really bothering you that much? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:55, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "you are not in favor of Biden" Once again I invite you to post what you believe passes for evidence to support this fantasy. But then I asked for evidiece for your previous invention about my supposed posiiton, and you haven't posted that, either. "and don’t even live in the United States" Indeed. So? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. It seems to me that a big part of the rationale for deleting this page is simply that the list is too long (okay, so make more lists so they're each, individually, more manageable???) or that there is some problem with the quality of people being listed. Some entries in this list are being objected to because people disagree with them personally, or they are being discounted simply because their endorsement was predictable. As evidence for the former, I cite someone's objection to Nikki Sixx's listing. Clearly, the implication in this objection was that they felt Nikki Sixx has nothing important to say about politics, NOT that Nikki Sixx is not notable (obviously, there is no question that Mr. Sixx is very notable). And the evidence for the latter is in the fact that the original call for deletion is simply because many of the entries in this list are people with Democratic party-aligned pasts. This is absolutely bonkers. Wikipedia is not here to judge if people OUGHT to matter, or to gatekeep whose voices SHOULD be put on a pedestal; if what they said (or, the fact that they said it) is clearly notable and can be verified as such, Wikipedia should provide that information! Especially in this case, given that there is a broad and lengthy precedent for Wikipedia's providing of information on political endorsements for major races, deletion is unwarranted. This complaint seems to boil down to either: a. the people on this list OUGHT not to have the power implicit in having a notable voice/endorsement which is listed in a prominent location like Wikipedia (which is absolutely not Wikipedia's job to judge) or b. this list is poorly maintained (Then why not just maintain it, rather than taking the almost unprecedented and drastic step of deletion? If the list is too long, why not break it up into sub-lists? Is it really right to break with a long-established precedent just because the list feels long?). Kingsocarso (talk) 04:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * "It seems to me that a big part of the rationale for deleting this page is simply that the list is too long" Did you actually read the deletion nomination? Where does it say that? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Immediate Close Majority of people have voted "Keep" Bunch of reply fighting going on even though majority of users want to keep (some, like me even did SNOW)I have no problem getting suggestions on how to improve these pages (in talk) but its clear that these pages serve a purpose(and that Biden's page isn't just "Democrat list" Animaileditor (talk) 09:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's not a vote. We specifically refer to it as a !vote (not-vote) because numbers don't really matter. Well-argued policy is what matters. —valereee (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. For lots of reasons:
 * The summary table in the subsection below shows the number of entries, number mentioning "Republican" and the percentage mentioning "Republican" for each level two section in the article. With 16% of 566 former Federal executive officials, 6% of 85 U.S. Senators and 8% of 227 state and territorial executive officials among others associated with the Republican party, and hundreds of other entries whose job is not being "a Democrat office holder" it is quite clear that this is far from "a list of Democrat office holders and a small proportion of other people" as claimed in the "correction" to the opening statement.
 * It would introduce obviously unacceptable political bias to delete the Biden article(s) without deleting the corresponding Trump articles as proposed here (the Trump articles have not been included in this proposal). The Trump articles cannot be deleted without a suitable discussion which has not occurred.
 * The endorsement articles for the current campaign are following currently accepted and long established practice and consensus. Any decision to stop covering endorsements needs much wider discussion than a local consensus on one article (a decision here should be without prejudice to such a wider discussion).
 * News coverage I have been following makes it clear that the number of endorsements for Biden from members of the opposing party is unprecedented, at least in modern times. This gives the article a significance beyond that of the other related articles, so if anything we should keep this one even if we get rid of the others!
 * A list is a convenient way of presenting structured information with associated reliable sources. Moving all this information back into the main campaign articles would impact their readability (and in this case make it too long as well). Turning it into exclusively flowing text would impact the usability. Certainly we could expand the lead to highlight significant aspects of the list (with of course suitable reliable sources).
 * --Mirokado (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary table
--Mirokado (talk) 03:55, 5 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.