Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Donald Trump presidential campaign 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are multiple problems with this page. Some 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. Also note this AfD. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Political endorsements don't mean a lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most citations are primary sources or Youtube videos, not secondary reliable sources, which doesn't make these endorsements independently notable. Unless someone can find an RS for every single endorsement, I see no point in keeping this article. Just mention the endorsement in the endorser's article if it's notable.NoMoreHeroes (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I must be looking at a different article, I'm seeing most entries reliably sourced. The ones which need better sourcing should be removed, but this isn't a valid rational for deletion. This is in much better shape than the Clinton AfD posted above, which had a separate article created because too many primary sourced entries made the article indiscriminate. The end result of that AfD is likely that they'll be merged back together into one endorsement article. Endorsement articles aren't promotional, they're common. See: List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2008, List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012.LM2000 (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with the reliable sources and other several similar articles about Barrack Obama,

The Youtube : it is can be also evidence nowdays as it's also one of the primary roles of news for community. These items should be considered. D8jang (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It should be regarded as a self-published primary source at best. Also, it is hard to be sure if the source doing the self-publishing actually is who we think it is. It is relatively easy for somebody to spoof something, at least for a while. See also hordes of fake Twitter accounts. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I wrote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016 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 belong as part of the main campaign page). This makes Wikipedia akin to a campaign brochure. However, I wonder if AfD is the proper place to hold this discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion on the validity of this type of article but I do think that it is very important that we are fair and consistent in either allowing or not allowing them. If this article goes then all the other articles of the same type have to go too. Maybe this does mean that individual AfDs are not the correct way to go as it would be too easy to reach inconsistent conclusions. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These nominations were flawed. It's possible that one or both of the Hillary articles survive and this one gets deleted. It's also possible that this one gets deleted but the primary endorsements article stays. Then there's the endorsement articles from the 2008 and 2012 cycles, which remain unaffected either way. We also have articles for newspaper endorsements and articles like Endorsements for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016. Similar articles exist for UK politics. I'm not sure where to have a discussion on these articles but I don't think individual AfDs is the place for it.LM2000 (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per reasons above. The main issue here should be determining if certain classes (such as individual state legislators) should be included at length, and parsing the sources to make sure they're reliable. Deleting this article would indicate a need to delete all other endorsement articles, which seems needlessly reactionary. An important part of understanding an election and its candidates is who were supporting the candidates and the justification around them.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix using reliable sources.--Jay942942 (talk) 10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I wish to second the points made by Sunshineisles2 and Jay942942. I made similar points during the discussion on the potential deletion of the similar Hillary Clinton endorsement arguments.Mpen320 (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.