Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign

This has nothing to do with race

I've seen multiple comments that are defending this article because of what they perceive as racial discrimination. I would just like to say that the discussion here is in no way related to race. I am well aware that especially now, tensions are high and it is easy to see something for what it's not. But please look beyond that, at the bigger picture. If you're gonna comment about the article, don't base your rationale on race or the current movement going on in our country, because those are entirely unrelated to the issue at hand. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I think those people are unlikely to read this or to have any legitimate interest in building an encyclopedia. Probably best to just WP:DENY. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Wait for the in-depth coverage in reliable sources" is really unfair...

...given the intentional media blackout on this campaign, à la Ross Perot's presidential campaigns. I keep seeing headlines like "Kim Kardashian's rapper husband announces presidential campaign", they won't even say his name. I even seen this article that outright said we mustn't talk about Kanye's campaign because it's a dangerous distraction. We are truly failing academically if we are dependent on the news to verify facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlamaWorkshop (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, LlamaWorkshop. You can complain wherever you want off-Wikipedia for what you perceive as the failure of "the news" to cover West's campaign. But here on Wikipedia, we summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. No more and no less. So please take your complaint to the publishers of the reliable sources, or feel free to establish "Kanyepedia" if you want to do that hard work. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Publicity stunt possibility and unreliable sources

A lot of editors are raising that even if it is a publicity stunt, the stunt regardless meets WP:GNG. I think this begs the question, though: What are we even writing about if it’s a stunt? Currently, there seems to be a lot of WP:SYNTH about his supposed policy positions, with unreliable sources cited. If the article were reduced to verifiable content from reliable sources only, we’d have a stub that could easily fit into Kanye West. Many current sources cited are essentially tabloids. Do we really think Mashable and The Hollywood Reporter are reliable sources for a political campaign article? They’re sources of Hollywood gossip. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tartan357:, The sticking point for me here is the triviality of Kanye-related coverage. While many sources provide reporting on Kanye's Twitter declaration, most appear to be written in jest, or with at least some acknowledgement of the novelty factor. Now, some sources have switched to covering the fact that Kanye is not formally running for president, but launching some elaborate social experiment or simply building excitement for a coming musical project (see: Fortune and Forbes. This informal candidacy is no different from Vermin Supreme's launch of the "Free Pony Party" or Pat Paulsen's notable protest-vote campaigns. Per WP:IINFO, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 04:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: I agree with this, too. We have to know what the article is actually about: a notable joke campaign, or a notable serious one. We need reliable secondary sources strongly supporting one perspective or the other to make a coherent article. Otherwise, we’re just assembling a string of quotes and paraphrased statements somewhat related to the topic. Like you said, just because those pieces of information are true and even numerous doesn’t mean this merits an article. If we can’t verify and communicate what the "campaign" actually is, then the article is doomed to be mostly WP:SYNTH. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Future notability

@KidAd: Many commenters seem to be under the impression that future notability means notability now. These comments are based on a misunderstanding of WP:GNG, and are not reasonable explanations for "keep" !votes. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It’s likely WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Currently, the AfD page is being flooded with "keep" !votes, many with little to no explanation. Should we strike the ones that argue on the basis of predicted future notability? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

I fully agree with you, but I am somewhat reluctant about interfering with votes after my experience with the 3rd and 4th Kyle Kulinky AfDs. Those discussions were flooded with SPA votes and vandalism after the article’s subject directed his fans to the AfD via Twitter. The deletion discussions were later taken to AN/I. If anything, I think it would be smart to create a median between legitimate votes and those cast without reason. It may also be helpful to draft a notice to the closing admin before the AfD is closed. I would be happy to help draft the message if you agree it is the best course of action. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: Yeah, that sounds like a good idea to me. This is my first time at an AfD with so many SPA !votes. Could you respond to my concern in the above section, too? — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 03:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357 It may also be pertinent to include a mention that many blind !Keep votes are based upon WP:ILIKEIT. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 04:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

@KidAd: Agreed, we should mention that as well. I missed this comment at first: "I appreciate this article. Please don't delete it." It’s hard to imagine a clearer case of WP:ILIKEIT. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 05:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Result

In my head I assumed we'd have a full legal-style decision filled with citations, policy, and summaries, so fair play for the short, sharp, no-nonsense "The result was no consensus." doktorb _words^deeds 12:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

AfD's can be a pretty half coherent, rag-tag, by the seat of your pants process. It just goes to show that life isn't always how you think it will be sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarity the person "closing" this AFD is trolling and creating multiple socks. Glen 13:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)