Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2024 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Jdcomix (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign endorsements

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Endorsements in modern politics is just people saying "I'll vote for X in the next elections!", and nothing more. This is like having a list "List of Star Trek fans", just in a political topic instead of pop culture. To detail it further:

Endorsements are not part of the electoral process, nor are they required in any way. People endorsing candidates do not have to go through a special process to do so, they are not selected (anyone being interviewed by the press may endorse a candidate if he wants), and may un-endorse candidates (and even endorse the opposing candidate) at any point.
Endorsers are not bound to their endorsements other than in their credibility. Someone may endorse candidate X, but if candidate Y wins, nothing stops him from suddenly becoming a vocal supporter of Y. And of course, as the vote is secret, people may vote someone different than the one they endorsed, and nobody would ever know it.
Endorsements do not have value in themselves. One man, one vote. When voting hours are over and we start counting, the vote of Elon Mush or Noam Chomsky have the same value than that of the regular Joe crossing the street.

Endorsements may still be relevant elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in "Political positions of X" articles or sections, but a list of people that endorsed someone? That sounds a lot like trivia. Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Cambalachero (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Keep - these are useful signals that are reported on in many notable publications Superb Owl (talk) 17:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are reliable sources for this topic. --Enos733 (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the two users above, and we have already had a similar discussion recently. I see that this is a more principal discussion, but would recycle my arguments from the aforementioned discussion that these lists are of public interest, they are limited to consist of people of note (or certainly meant to be), and it has been common practice for a long time to have information like this on wikipedia and, when the lists become too long for the "mother pages", pages like these are the logical result. Alexander Bonaparte Caesar (talk) 17:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Plenty of media sources report this stuff. Binksternet (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close We've had similar discussions in the past about political endorsements. Tipsyfishing (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. We had this exact discussion two weeks ago. This is a massively useful article type that only Wikipedia is really good at. And obviously the Trump and Harris ones are quite topical.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GNG and N are certainly not in question, though because he didn't get beyond Iowa, the DeSantis article is likely a viable candidate for deletion, but the rest are sourced well and proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per all above. Clearly a notable topic. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close Kamala Harris' page already had a deletion discussion. As per Wikipedia:Deletion and deletionism: "It is considered bad form to nominate an article for deletion multiple times within a short span of time, particularly if there was not a close decision." Flames675 (talk)
Keep of course. Not sure why this would even be a discussion. 2600:6C40:5AF0:7680:4432:A672:D7E3:55D7 (talk) 02:36, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of unencyclopaedic information and the relevant notability guideline is WP:NLIST. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per previous arguments, this is absolutely notable following WP:GNG. CJ-Moki (talk) 05:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We will of course mention somewhere the endorsements for the candidates, and if the list of endorsements becomes too large to fit in any other article, then we create a separate article for those endorsements (in fact, we have a guideline for this, WP:ENDORSE). Some of the above pages (such as the Trump, Biden, and Harris ones) unquestionably are too large for any other article, whereas others, if taken individually to AfD, I could see a more convincing argument for deletion. Gödel2200 (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and close ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:30, 16 August 2024 (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.