Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Michael Bloomberg 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 keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

List of Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:IINFO. It also runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWS; it's simply a cataloging of routine political news coverage. Unless the endorsement itself is of particular interest, an endorsement is a context-less statistic of no encyclopedic value. Particularly noteworthy endorsements can be and already covered at the main article. Indeed, WP:TENYEARTEST even suggests:

–Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 04:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Only Bloomberg's? Not Trump's, Sanders', Biden's, Buttigieg's, Klobuchar's, and Warren's? Not to mention those no longer running, such as Booker and Harris. What about these lists from prior elections? Should, for example, Clinton's be deleted also? -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 04:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Other stuff exists. This is the one I saw, so this is the one I nominated.  I'd definitely support deletion of those too, and I'll nominate them once if this winds up being deleted.  If anyone else wants to bundle them along with this one, I'd be okay with that too. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:01, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Valid split from Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. You know I love merges and would endorse consolidation there or Michael_Bloomberg_2020_presidential_campaign, but this one is adequately long for a separate page. Reywas92Talk 05:33, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * This doesn't meet any of the citeria to speedily keep. Just because an article is split off from another doesn't mean it still can't be deleted.  In this case, I would also support deletion of the article it was split from, for the same reasons in this nomination and in my elaboration responding to the comment immediately above. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 05:40, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay I don't really care at all if it can be "speedy" or not, but you are welcome to start an RFC on the ~45 articles in Category:United States presidential election endorsements then. Related prior AFDs include Articles for deletion/List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, Articles for deletion/List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012, Articles for deletion/List of Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, Articles for deletion/List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, Articles for deletion/Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election, Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016. Honestly I think these lists for the general election are pretty stupid since it can be assumed virtually all members of the same political party endorse their candidate, but they have more value with respect to primaries. I've struck my vote since I suppose further discussion may be worthwhile but don't hold your breath for anything other than a snowball. Reywas92Talk 05:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep These types of articles are nothing out of the ordinary. Fivethirtyeight has a detailed endorsement tracker, so it's not like this information is irrelevant. Deleting this page seems unnecessary.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 05:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: Valid split, WP:LISTN, and mean that there's more than enough precedent that individual AFDs are inappropriate, but also more than enough precedent to suggest that an RFC on removal of endorsements in toto is almost certain to fail (the case for retention is stronger than WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES).  ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:30, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This is ridiculous. If Yang could have an endorsement page then Bloomberg merits one as well let alone that this list will expand. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - deleting the content would be ridiculous, article is a split from Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and is clearly too long for being merged back.--Staberinde (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment (to both the closer and the previous and future commenters). I don't want to start WP:BLUDGEONing individual comments, but there's a problem with the way this is going.  The keep !votes are almost exclusively focusing on arguments like WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT without addressing the original rationale to delete.  The fact that other candidate X has the same sort of list is completely irrelevant, especially if theirs should be deleted too.  The fact that this was split off from another list is irrelevant, especially if that from which it was split should be deleted too.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 15:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you think all such endorsement lists should be deleted, then at minimum you should nominate all 2020 US presidential election endorsement articles together, or even make a RfC about suitability of such articles in general. Deleting information about endorsements of one candidate in an ongoing election, while leaving all other candidate's endorsements in place, would be a very blatant violation of WP:NPOV.--Staberinde (talk) 17:46, 29 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I voted delete or redirect in the AFD for Andrew Yang. My comment there questioned "whether these lists of endorsements are generally worthy of a Wikipedia article [since] Wikipedia is not a repository of campaign material." However, I know I was in the minority there - and while I continue to hold my position, I do not believe the community thinks this type of article should be removed from the project (and a note to the closer, this comment should not be interpreted as a delete vote). --Enos733 (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I was considering a WP:SNOW close for this discussion, but I chatted a bit with  on WP:Discord about that possibility before doing so (wanting to avoid a WP:DELREV). As it stands with WP:ARBAP2, editors generally want to see coverage roughly proportional to a candidate's support. Is that fair? No, probably not. It doesn't really work well with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but for editors in this area it is one of the few things that manage to keep the peace amongst participants. If you want to see the inevitable fall out where one article is created about a candidate (for notability reasons) and Other stuff doesn't exist, see AFD:Media bias against Bernie Sanders. As I said on Discord, the best bet is to withdraw and do a bundled nomination. Alternatively, I would recommend another test case that isn't as covered as much in media as this one; like List of Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign endorsements because editors are *surprisingly* less vocal about keeping around stuff about inactive candidates who didn't make a large splash (see all the since redirected campaign pages). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 16:18, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Probably more than most, Bloomberg's endorsement list is independently notable. This was something more reflected in this version of the article, but that was moved a while ago to the campaign page where it was just removed as "vandalism".
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. If any candidates list of endorsements is considered non-notable, or indiscriminate, then the rest are. Frankly I only see one candidates list of endorsement articles nominated so I'm going to assume that it is a politically biased nomination. There is a significant amount of coverage in these articles, and Michael Bloomberg's is no different. Ajf773 (talk) 09:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. Deacon Vorbis has stated reasoning behind picking this one already above (ie. randomly). &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. This list and its topic are independently notable because its group of notable Bloomberg endorsers is tracked and discussed by independent reliable sources like Fivethirtyeight. See WP:LISTN.  Merge with Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries is not appropriate here because Bloomberg's list is notable and long enough to justify a stand-alone list, unlike John Delaney. Per WP:ERFC, endorsements lists are limited by only including entries for independently notable endorsers or those with Wikipedia articles when the entries are supported by independent reliable sources and use the word "endorse" or synonymous language. The criteria ensure that endorsement lists are groups of notable endorsers and not indiscriminate catalogs of non-notable supporters.  The value of notable endorsement lists is discussed in Articles for deletion/Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election, Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016, and Articles for deletion/List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Deletion of all articles in Category:United States presidential election endorsements seems unreasonable, especially now that editors have developed strict criteria for endorsement lists in WP:ERFC. --Tvc 15 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't delete this article: it is an important journalistic resource. Officials who endorsed Bloomberg may in the near future try to distance themselves from their actions. This will be a valuable public record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterfeld (talk • contribs) 13:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep -as one of the last remaining five candidates (as of Super Tuesday 2020), this is notable and fair. FWIW, I publicly supported other candidates, not Bloomberg. Bearian (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2020 (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.