Talk:Third party and independent candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election

Redo the Page?

Should the page match the 2012 Third Parties and Independents section? That looks so much better than this to me- what do you think? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. Please provide a WikiLink.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian Presidential Candidates 2016

The Libertarian Party has published its current list of Presidential candidates. The 2016 Presidential candidates currently recognized by the Libertarian Party are:

•Marc Allan Feldman
•Darryl Perry
•Steve Kerbel
•Rhett Smith
•Cecil Ince

None of these candidates are currently listed on the Wiki page. Those listed under Libertarian Party are not currently recognized Libertarian candidates. Mfeldmanmd (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

None of the above candidates have been shown to meet the notability benchmarks of WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, which presently is a prerequisite for inclusion on the page. Currently, there is talk of revising the inclusion standard (see here and here) to make "recognized by the party" a primary factor for inclusion, though I'm not sure that would include candidates not having standalone wikipedia articles. But for the time being anyway, the ones listed in the article meet the benchmark and the ones listed above do not.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

References

How to get listed

How does a declared independent candidate get listed here? Note rodericke.com Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BA6:9CA0:A59C:DDC8:F414:852D (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the person has to be notable enough to warrant having a separate Wikipedia article about them. And that is determined based mostly on the basic notability criterion for people, which says, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (See WP:BASIC.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This standard seems ridiculous in this context, IMO. This is essentially a list article. Of U.S. minor party candidates. Very few such people are going to be notable in their own right outside of being a minor party presidential candidate. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ChristTrekker. The general notability guideline applies specifically to who or what qualifies for a standalone article, not what can or can't be included in an article or list. The candidates pages for the D's and R's at least mentions some of the non-notable (by WP standards) candidates, this one should too. How about we include NN candidates running for a party's nomination that are verifiably recognized as an official candidate by the party in question. For independents, how about they be included if their candidacy can be verified by at least one reliable outside source. Thoughts?--NextUSprez (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The separate article standard is meant for inclusion in the main election page and on the template. All recognized candidates for the major third parties should be included. The LP lists its recognized candidates here. In addition, all independent candidates that receive ballot access in at least one state should be included but that is yet to be determined at this point. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm okay with including all candidates formally recognized by a party. As for independents, if we're going to include only the ones that have confirmed ballot access in at least one state, we're going to have to remove all the ones listed currently. Instead of making of making ballot access an exclusive standard for inclusion, we could add: confirmed write-in status in at least 2 states; and candidacy confirmed by at least 2 reliable secondary sources, aside from an FEC filing (the reason I say this last part is because there are now more than 1,500 candidates and counting who have filed with FEC, many of them obvious jokes. So an FEC filing alone, especially in this election season, cannot be trusted to verify a legitimate candidacy).--Cojovo (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme - now a Democrat?

Should Vermin Supreme be switched to the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page instead? He is entered in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. (See [1], and under Election Information, click on "Candidates Filed" to download the list. I don't have a direct link to the PDF but he is the second-to-last candidate listed on the last page.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done He has been removed from this page and re-classified as a democrat.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Hill":

• From Rick Santorum: Devaney, Tim (24 January 2015). "Santorum: Immigrants costing US jobs". TheHill.com. The Hill. Retrieved 2 March 2015. We need an immigration policy that puts American workers first.
• From John McAfee: Trujillo, Mario (September 8, 2015). "Software pioneer McAfee files paperwork to run for president". The Hill. Retrieved September 9, 2015.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)