Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Delaney presidential campaign, 2020

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) 03:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Delaney presidential campaign, 2020[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON article about a person's declaration that he's going to be a candidate in the presidential primaries three years from now. There's literally nothing to say or source here yet except that he's declared his intention and that one businessman tweeted an endorsement, and three years is a long time to crystal ball whether this will actually go anywhere -- any number of things could happen between now and 2020 to make him not a candidate in the actual primaries. So for the time being, the place for any content about this is in his BLP, not in a standalone article. If he actually runs in the primaries in 2020, then there will be a reasonable basis for a standalone article, but we don't need one of these to immediately exist in 2017 for every single person who says they plan to run for president three years from now. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we have an article on Lawrence Lessig's campaign from the last election, and that lasted only two months, received only a handful of endorsements and achieved no recognition from the public at large. Delaney is a member of Congress, so I think he already has a leg up on Lessig. It also should be noted that he doesn't say he's planning to run for President. He says he's running for president. In the present tense. He has a website and a logo and a committee and staff and everything. This is a campaign right now, not just in 2019 and 2020. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between "planning to run for president" and "running for president" is not determined by the words one uses to express the intent — it's determined by the fact that since the actual primary process won't even start until 2019, the planning vs. running distinction is a completely moot point right now. There's no primary process for him to register in yet; there are no debates happening yet; there is nothing for him to do yet except say he's running, and that is not in and of itself enough to cross the planning vs. running line. There's nothing for us to say about this as of today except "he says he's running, the end."

The length of Lessig's campaign has nothing to do with anything, either: the primary process was underway and Lessig registered in it, and that's a very different thing than stating one's intentions two full years before the process even begins to get organized at all. The more comparable example to this, rather, is Dwayne Johnson, who does not have one of these as of yet, and rightly shouldn't since there's nothing of substance to say about it yet. As of today, the correct place for any content about this is in Delaney's main biography, not in a standalone spinoff — if he registers as an official candidate once the primary process begins in 2019, then one of these will be warranted, but right now there's nothing substantive to be said about it yet. Bearcat (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are all good points. However, when do we deem the primary process to have started? January 1, 2019? I'm genuinely curious. I also disagree that there's 'nothing for him to do yet'. He could go to the early primary states, host town halls, give policy speeches, meet with local party officials. These are all things candidates do in a primary campaign before the actual primaries and debates. The only difference is, Delaney would be doing it way sooner than anyone else (assuming no one else declares in the near future). MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per MAINEiac. MB298 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. An announced campaign is an announced campaign. This one is from a federally elected official, so it has more credibility (and consequent notability) than gadfly announcements. bd2412 T 02:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per BD2412. Article is notable but expansions could be made to improve it. Overall, the article has notability. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What expansions are even possible as of today? Bearcat (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

None really, as of now. But, there'll obviously be more things to note as the campaign continues. - EditDude (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate time for an article to start existing is after more things to note have already occurred. Not the moment you can source "this has been announced, the end". Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't have notability. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with John Delaney. Agree this is too soon. Plus, we're not even sure he is going to actually run. It's still a long 3 years until then. He could just drop the whole thing in about a year or so. I'll support expanding the article when there is actually something to expand. There is little of substantial to make a whole article for it. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 03:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you retain the title of this article as a redirect; i.e., what applies in WP:REDIRECT? Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Delete Fails WP:EVENT. One of the two newspaper articles contains rumors, and two newspaper articles is not coverage that rises to the level of Balloon Boy. The Washington Post article is already listed at John Delaney (Maryland politician), so there is nothing to salvage from the existing article. Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BD2412 and MAINEiac. We should only consider deleting the article if Delaney ends up dropping out before election season. - EditDude (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A poorly-conceived nomination. This isn't a flash-in-the-pan joke candidate, this is a 3-term sitting Congressman who has declared his intent to run for President of the United States in the next election cycle. The announcement has garnered significant attention from reliable sources, that is the the threshold to judge. WP:EVENT is not applicable here, a campaign is an ongoing, continuous happening, not a single pont in time which could be narrowed to "an event". If some joker made a "John Delaney Presidential Announcement Bid" article, then a wp:event argument would have merit. TheValeyard (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do editors know the difference between events, and "happenings" to which WP:EVENT does not apply? Please cite applicable policies, guidelines, or essays. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A notable politician has filed paperwork to run for President in 202, reliable sources have covered this, that is all that is required. TheValeyard (talk) 18:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if you can't tell from my comments upthread. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments upthread made the argument that the candidate might do things, so we therefore need an article. No, that means we might need an article. Wikipedia can wait for the future, at which point we don't have to guess what will happen, and we might choose another way to cover the issue than on a new article. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Same rationale as TheValeyard's. PvOberstein (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheValeyard did not explain how "happenings" are covered in policy, guidelines, or essays. Can you? Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I admit that I was skeptical, but I googled and the story ran on the AP wire where it was picked up by major dailies including the Los Angeles Times, CNN had it. Don't know that the candidacy will go anywhere, but he's rich enough not to have to quit quickly, according to the Political article on the page, an source form which a better article can be built.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Something on the AP wire is an example of something that fails WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-He's a congressman who's declared his intention to run. That's important. 2 years from now, campaigning in the primaries will begin. It will receive heavier traffic then. I say leave it alone. Display name 99 (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a WP:IAR argument, or is there some other claim to this being a policy-based argument? Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and suggest Snow Keep closure. It's a sitting congressman who is clearly running (as per the WaPo article and others), and is taking actions (not running for re-election) as a result of that. My thoughts on his candidacy are irrelevant; it's not WP:TOOSOON to have a stand-alone article. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We've got an article for Trump's. The election campaign has already started. Earthscent (talk) 02:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a declared campaign from a member of Congress. Alex (Talk) 16:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak and Tentative Keep I think it is rash to judge this as unlikely to to go anywhere (although I will concede, I personally will hedge my dividends on his campaign failing to garner him the nomination, my personal prediction is not a credible source for Wikipedia to write-off his prospects prematurely). Additionally, let's not presume he will do nothing anytime soon until we have a long enough period of time to actually base such a judgement upon. Editors initially stated that there would be little to write about with Trump's ongojng "reelection campaign", yet he has already held seven rallies and a major fundraiser in the past few months. This is a campaign launched by an incumbent congressman. We can always merge in a month or so if it becomes apparent/evident that this article will otherwise remain a stub for the next few years. SecretName101 (talk) 01:19, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your post says, "Let's not presume he will do nothing anytime soon." At Wikipedia, we don't need to presume the future, as we can wait for it. Keeping this article because your WP:CRYSTAL ball says that it will be needed, is not policy. Unscintillating (talk) 18:36, 5 August 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.