Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:23, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2020

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

WP:TOOSOON. It's also doubtful that the Melbourne Rally was targeted at the 2020 re-election. The existing brief mention in the Donald Trump bio is sufficient at this stage. — JFG ^talk 23:17, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was advertised on the website of his campaign organization. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/schedule/register/melbourne-fl-2017/ SecretName101 (talk) 21:28, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 until we can get more info for a full article.
Merge or delete – Has practically no information and will likely remain very short for years; anything of particular noteworthiness can be merged into associated articles until around 2019. Master of Time (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way to soon for such an article. President Trump might not live long enough for this to be a reasonable article. I suspect he will, but it is still totally crystal ball at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether he lives to that election or dies (literally or politically) before it does negate the fact that such a campaign existed. The campaign's official organizing body/ staff is already in-place, the campaign has already raised funds, and he has already held a campaign rally. There are plenty of articles about campaigns which ended before any primaries took place (i.e. Lindsey Graham presidential campaign, 2016 and Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012). There are even articles for campaigns which never resulted in an official candidacy (i.e. Evan Bayh presidential campaign, 2008). Thus I'd argue that this is a moot-point you've brought up. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that "other stuff exists" is not an argument in and of itself. However, this is a campaign, and whether it lasts to the election does not change that. SecretName101 (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

President Trump filed a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2) for the 2020 election. It states that he does not formally announce his candidacy, but that he reached the threshold requiring him to file as a 2020 presidential candidate to comply with the Federal Election Campaign Act. I added the citation in the article. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he did. You are right. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/2017/live-updates/politics/live-coverage-of-trumps-inauguration/president-trump-tells-the-fec-he-qualifies-as-a-candidate-for-2020/ SecretName101 (talk) 07:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I added as an additional citation in the article, as this is a third party source (whereas FEC filings are not), a requirement for WP:N. There are many others, and there will continue to be more. Jack N. Stock (talk) 07:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. This is definitely not something to delete. It is well sourced; I verified and expanded the citations. These are events that have already happened, so it is not "too soon" or speculation. As "examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election" in WP:BALL, then a campaign for that election that is already underway is certainly notable. This should be a request to merge, in which case it would be best to close this RfD, and commence discussion into whether to merge and what article to merge to. I'm not even sure we should merge, but I'd rather have the appropriate process in place before making a decision. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, it's totally unique in the history of America. A candidate who starts campaigning right after being elected, it's probably a worldwide new invention. There's hundred of sources, sources about the start of the campaign, sources about the "why", there's even polls [1] [2] about Trump's reelection. --Deansfa (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- And if this is like numerous other events, many of those sources will be repeating the same things. Master of Time (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, many sources speaking about the same event kind of repeat the same thing. What else? --Deansfa (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This campaign is going to exist. Therefore keep this article.--Broter (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no way of knowing that. This seems more like wanting to keep it just because he filed, which is inadequate considering he could die, he could decide he doesn't like being president, or any of a number of other things could occur before 2019. At the very least, I don't see why "keep" is any better than "merge" at the current time. Master of Time (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Master of Time, even if that happens, the fact will remain that there still was a campaign. He has fundraised, he has retained a campaign staff. He has maintained officespace housing the campaign headquarters. Again, Evan Bayh never officially launched his 2008 presidential campaign, however it has been viewed as noteworthy and existent-enough to have its own article. SecretName101 (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll just note that that article was created in 2009, not 2005. There is no information here that couldn't easily be merged elsewhere. Master of Time (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to an appropriate article. That he fulfilled a legal requirement by filing a form does not make this a notable topic in its own right at this point in time. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not crystal ball, has been cited to numerous reliable sources. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 02:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To paraphrase someone from the article's talk page, I don't know why he's doing this, but he is. This is an official campaign, and even though it's highly unusual for a president to start running for re-election so early, it is happening. And as an incumbent, I'd say that makes it notable enough. --pluma♫ ♯ 01:33, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's already filed with the FEC for his 2020 campaign, and has already held a campaign rally that attracted substantial media attention. In particular, The Atlantic has referred to the Florida Rally as the kickoff of the campaign [3]. Given that his campaign can only become more notable with time, I believe keeping the article is the best option. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reason I created the article is because the campaign is up and running and is real. Why it's this early I haven't a clue, and frankly I don't care. All I care about whether or not it is real. It is and is also notable. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- If this was deleted, it's a fair assumption it would be the first time for an article about a US president's re-election campaign (or probably any head of state). Jack N. Stock (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article clearly deserves to be retained. SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Who can figure out Donald "I Did It My Way" Trump? It may seem strange but it definitely is a campaign. Buster Seven Talk 21:56, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, noteworthy topic that already has began. MB298 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect as per WP:TOOSOON. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Never thought I'd say this, but Keep. Trump already announced the beginning of his re-election campaign; there are reliable sources for it, per above. ansh 666 02:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - it fits all policies for inclusion but I think a good case for WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL could be made. DrStrauss talk 13:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. If all the OR and source misrepresentation were removed, we'd be left with an article that said little more than "Donald Trump filed a form with the FEC. A blog post comparing Trump's style of 'permanent campaign' with that of his predecessors said that Trump was campaigning earlier and more aggressively than prior Presidents." Meanwhile virtually the entire article focuses on the pointlessly trivial coatrack stuff about Sweden, which doesn't have anything to do with this highly debatable claim about a "2020 presidential campaign". I'd say some topic bans are in order. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 per WP:CRYSTAL. A section in the 2016 campaign article is enough for now, as this will most likely remain fairly short until at least 2019. This is Paul (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By way of comparison, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2012 (his second) was started as a redirect on 13 April 2010 and became an article on 4 April 2011, which corresponds with my suggestion above. This is Paul (talk) 01:34, 5 March 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.