Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

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 merge‎ to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Randall Terry 2024 presidential campaign

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No established notability. Additionally Broden, Terry, 2024 election subjects, and the Constitution Party all have their own articles that can handle what little notable content exists on this subject SecretName101 (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: with the current piece on Randall Terry or related topics. Terry's campaign itself is not notable. Broader articles can cover the details of his 2024 run for president, so a standalone article for this campaign is not needed. Merging the content would keep all the information, put it in a better place, and keep the platform concise and focused.--AstridMitch (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have definitely nominated it for a merge rather than deletion if there was any measure of content in the article.

But with the article at 2,614 bytes (a stub to end all stubs), merge vs. deletion is a difference without a distinction. SecretName101 (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge Don't do this crap, just because the major candidates have separate pages for their campaigns doesn't mean any campaign needs its own article. Reywas92^Talk 14:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Randall Terry#2024 presidential candidacy per comments of SecretName101 and others. A standalone page is unwarranted per WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per the earlier comments. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If we decide to delete this Article, Wikipedia could face bias allegations. Think about it: Joe Biden's Campaign had (before he stepped out of the race) an Article, Kamala Harris has one, Donald Trump has one, Jill Stein has one, Cornel West has one, RFK Jr., and so on. Is it fair to not have one for this campaign? No, it isn't. This campaign DOES have notability. Here's just one example of such coverage: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/27/constitution-party-randall-terry-election-2024-00154790. Currently, the Constitution Party is on the ballot in over 12 states. Why shouldn't it's Presidential candidate get an Article? - Avishai11 (talk) 23:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OTHER and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Randall Terry. Media outlets do not seem to consider his campaign especially notable. Just because someone makes the ballot doesn't automatically mean their campaign deserves a Wikipedia page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignore the usual shrieking about bias. We cover what reliable sources cover. This page is useless, his 2024 "campaign" should be mentioned at his BLP, nothing more. Don't think a redirect is necessary as it is unlikely to be a common search term. AusLondonder (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively into his article. I’m not swayed by allegations that we’d be accused of favoritism. It’s literally the top bad argument in AfD. Think of the children and no true Scotsman and all that are just another logical fallacy out of many. We’re a private charity, not a public benefit. As of now, there are no reliable sources; that includes Politico, which is just a fancy blog. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 26 July 2024 (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.