601:. 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. ----
241:, 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.
424:
203:
537:
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
427:
I am not sure
Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) akin to a campaign brochure. However, I wonder if
258:
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
446:
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
319:
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.
170:
201:
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
96:
91:
100:
83:
259:
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:
470:
164:
466:
474:
87:
400:
272:
264:
260:
79:
71:
276:
268:
130:
478:
123:
380:
360:
185:
152:
465:
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
611:
589:
564:
547:
525:
490:
456:
437:
412:
392:
372:
352:
329:
311:
288:
250:
233:
215:
65:
538:
needlessly reactionary. An important part of understanding an election and its candidates is who were supporting the candidates and the justification around them.--
340:
146:
142:
192:
302:
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.
158:
469:
stays. Then there's the endorsement articles from the 2008 and 2012 cycles, which remain unaffected either way. We also have articles for
607:
17:
580:. I made similar points during the discussion on the potential deletion of the similar Hillary Clinton endorsement arguments.
503:
630:
40:
425:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016
481:. I'm not sure where to have a discussion on these articles but I don't think individual AfDs is the place for it.
543:
447:
individual AfDs are not the correct way to go as it would be too easy to reach inconsistent conclusions. --
246:
229:
211:
626:
452:
325:
36:
307:
577:
556:
573:
560:
539:
405:
385:
365:
345:
178:
602:
585:
433:
242:
225:
207:
59:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
625:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
54:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
486:
448:
321:
284:
298:
I agree with the reliable sources and other several similar articles about
Barrack Obama,
519:
581:
429:
117:
482:
303:
280:
514:
475:
Endorsements for the
Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
619:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
273:
List of
Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2008
506:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
401:
list of United States of America-related deletion discussions
265:
List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2012
261:
List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008
80:
List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
72:
List of Donald Trump presidential campaign endorsements, 2016
277:
List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012
269:
List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements, 2008
113:
109:
105:
177:
428:
AfD is the proper place to hold this discussion. --
512:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
191:
224:per nom. Political endorsements don't mean a lot.
381:list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
633:). No further edits should be made to this page.
361:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
8:
399:Note: This debate has been included in the
379:Note: This debate has been included in the
359:Note: This debate has been included in the
339:Note: This debate has been included in the
398:
378:
358:
341:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
338:
572:. I wish to second the points made by
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
555:and fix using reliable sources.--
467:the primary endorsements article
612:17:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
590:18:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
565:10:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
548:00:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
526:05:15, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
491:01:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
457:19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
438:19:05, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
413:00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
393:00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
373:00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
353:00:22, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
330:19:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
312:08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
66:01:09, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
477:. Similar articles exist for
289:23:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
251:16:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
234:07:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
216:02:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
650:
622:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
471:newspaper endorsements
55:(non-admin closure)
473:and articles like
528:
415:
395:
375:
355:
57:
641:
624:
517:
511:
509:
507:
410:
408:
390:
388:
370:
368:
350:
348:
196:
195:
181:
133:
121:
103:
64:
53:
34:
649:
648:
644:
643:
642:
640:
639:
638:
637:
631:deletion review
620:
610:
529:
515:
502:
500:
406:
404:
386:
384:
366:
364:
346:
344:
138:
129:
94:
78:
75:
58:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
647:
645:
636:
635:
615:
614:
606:
595:
594:
593:
592:
574:Sunshineisles2
567:
550:
540:Sunshineisles2
510:
499:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
460:
459:
441:
440:
423:As I wrote in
417:
416:
407:Rhododendrites
396:
387:Rhododendrites
376:
367:Rhododendrites
356:
347:Rhododendrites
335:
334:
333:
332:
300:
299:
292:
291:
253:
236:
199:
198:
135:
74:
69:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
646:
634:
632:
628:
623:
617:
616:
613:
609:
608:contributions
604:
600:
597:
596:
591:
587:
583:
579:
575:
571:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
551:
549:
545:
541:
536:
533:
532:
531:
530:
527:
524:
523:
522:
518:
508:
505:
492:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
463:
462:
461:
458:
454:
450:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
435:
431:
426:
422:
419:
418:
414:
409:
402:
397:
394:
389:
382:
377:
374:
369:
362:
357:
354:
349:
342:
337:
336:
331:
327:
323:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
309:
305:
297:
294:
293:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
266:
262:
257:
254:
252:
248:
244:
240:
237:
235:
231:
227:
223:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
194:
190:
187:
184:
180:
176:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
144:
141:
140:Find sources:
136:
132:
128:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
62:
56:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
621:
618:
603:Patar knight
598:
569:
552:
534:
520:
513:
501:
420:
301:
295:
255:
243:NoMoreHeroes
238:
226:Clarityfiend
221:
208:Power~enwiki
200:
188:
182:
174:
167:
161:
155:
149:
139:
126:
61:CAPTAIN RAJU
60:
49:
47:
31:
28:
479:UK politics
449:DanielRigal
322:DanielRigal
165:free images
627:talk page
578:Jay942942
557:Jay942942
37:talk page
629:or in a
504:Relisted
204:this AfD
124:View log
39:or in a
582:Mpen320
430:Enos733
421:Comment
171:WP refs
159:scholar
97:protect
92:history
483:LM2000
304:D8jang
281:LM2000
239:Delete
222:Delete
143:Google
101:delete
186:JSTOR
147:books
131:Stats
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
599:Keep
586:talk
576:and
570:Keep
561:talk
553:Keep
544:talk
535:Keep
487:talk
453:talk
434:talk
403:. —
383:. —
363:. —
343:. —
326:talk
308:talk
296:Keep
285:talk
256:Keep
247:talk
230:talk
212:talk
179:FENS
153:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
50:keep
605:- /
521:947
411:\\
391:\\
371:\\
351:\\
193:TWL
122:– (
588:)
563:)
546:)
489:)
455:)
436:)
328:)
320:--
310:)
287:)
275:,
271:,
267:,
263:,
249:)
232:)
214:)
206:.
173:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
52:.
584:(
559:(
542:(
516:J
485:(
451:(
432:(
324:(
306:(
283:(
279:.
245:(
228:(
210:(
197:)
189:·
183:·
175:·
168:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
145:(
137:(
134:)
127:·
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.