List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was non-administratively closed with very few participants. Nearly all comments were by KidAd ( talk · contribs). Folks agreeing to keep specified constraints, such as requiring notability and "names who have their own wiki article". But the closer did not include those constraints in the decision.

At the time of nomination, it consisted almost entirely of Original Research and rampant WP:SPECULATION. Even the first citation in the lead (Biden campaign grows more diverse with people of color making up nearly half of staff) literally has no mention of any names. All it verifies is that there is a campaign, and it has staff. After careful examination of every reference, I'd found that only one subsection (Economic policy) comes close to WP:LISTN, where a single ref has a list. That would be better merged into the main campaign article. There is no reliable source listed for such important positions as "campaign manager" and "deputy campaign manager", and most remaining are listed as "senior advisor".

Speaking as a subject matter expert, who has 30+ years of experience as campaign manager and staffer and volunteer at all levels from local city council to congressional, state, and national: most of these names would not consider themselves "campaign staff". For example, elected officials who have endorsed the candidate are not staff. Therefore, I'd carefully removed inappopriate names, with nearly two dozen detailed edit summaries.

More recently, much of the speculation has been moved to another entirely speculative article, Cabinet of Joe Biden.

My preference would be to merge everything remaining to the Biden 2020 campaign article, and delete this page. William Allen Simpson ( talk) 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Since an overwhelming majority of the !votes—including respected, long-standing editors—were for keeping, it could hardly be closed any other way. Issues with the content or constraints were not mentioned in the closing statement because those are editorial decisions, whereas the deletion discussion (except extreme cases) focus on the notability of the topic, not the current content of the article. ( t · c) buidhe 18:07, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse although I personally do not think that the list is encyclopedic. This is DRV, not another AFD (and another AFD would be tendentious). It is often said that an AFD is not a vote, but it does have aspects of a vote, and a closer should not disregard the weight of community opinion. Community opinion was to Keep, and DRV should not be used to complain that the closer forgot to supervote. Maybe the closer was prudent not to supervote. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse but I agree with Robert McClenon - the keep !votes were terrible and WP:LISTN isn't justified by the sourcing, but at the end of the day keep was the effective consensus and the best way to close this if you're acting as a closer. I don't close articles but I would probably have ended up voting on this one instead of closing it had I come across it. I also thought buidhe was an administrator, but there's a possible outcome where this gets re-closed by an administrator. SportingFlyer T· C 19:25, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-close Rhododendrites didn't technically !vote and the first delete !voter's rationale was rebutted, but I agree with W.A.S. below and I think this really should have been closed by an administrator. This was a very bad discussion which could easily have been closed as a no consensus - vague waves were made at LISTN, and the nominator did discuss the notability of the topic (and considered some of the information could have been moved elsewhere), even though buidhe doesn't note that above. SportingFlyer T· C 23:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse given that the opinion of the discussion was on the side of Keep, much of what the nominator was complaining about has been removed and the only other person supporting deletion made an argument which is clearly wrong and not that great to start with, I don't think this could have been closed any other way. Expecting entries in lists to have their own articles is a common selection criterion. I'd suggest renominating after some time with a nomination rebutting the LISTN argument. Hut 8.5 20:02, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Thank you, but we've already been down that path.
  1. KidAd recently mass reverted all the carefully documented individual removal of the poorly chosen content.
  2. He was supported in doing so, on the Talk page, "... not to use individual discussion comments made at AFD as rationale for your editing behaviour, especially as there was a non-admin closure by Buidhe at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign staff members, which set no conditions."
  3. I'd already mentioned the WP:LISTN guideline ("if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines;")
  4. and already cited "violation of WP:NOR and WP:SPECULATION, policies that trump a mere argumentation essay or guideline."
  5. The closure shouldn't be based upon a meager majority (4:3) of unsupported !votes that ignore policy. Every closer should prioritize policy over popularity of !votes.
     William Allen Simpson ( talk) 23:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, noting that there's an opportunity here for the nominator to read the room.— S Marshall  T/ C 13:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  As long as the room understands that all of the proposed alternatives mentioned heretofore have already been done. Again, the closer mistakenly described a meager majority (4:3) as "overwhelming" and did not take into account policy.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• The discussion was closed accurately and I must endorse the closure. I don't especially like the outcome of the discussion; I think it is US-centric, recentist, and problematic in several other ways, but that is not an argument which is eligible to be aired here.
  I would suggest relisting in 6-12 months; or, if a merge is desired, starting a discussion on the talk page and using {{ mergeto}}. Stifle ( talk) 13:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion nomination did not persuade. The article meets LISTN. To the extent that criticisms are valid, they can be addressed by editing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:09, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  A merge to Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign, when that article de-bloats, I think is a likely good solution. There is no role for deletions. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  As already noted, the article in its entirety does not now and has never met the LISTN guideline: "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Only a single sub-section currently meets that guideline. I agree about the merge, and that will be my penultimate step. But I'm seriously concerned about administrators not upholding policy over guidelines and essays. We spent a lot of time working on policies 15+ years ago, and I'm a bit horrified to discover that they aren't being followed anymore.
  William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, AfD participants said “LISTN”, and I misassumed which guideline that was. The list does NOT meet LISTN, an independently notable list, but meets WP:CLN, as every listed entry is a bluelink, and so it is justified for its navigation assistance. Now, it may not be reasonable for me to say here to read the participants “LISTN” as “CLN”, but I do. That said, just because it may meet CLN doesn’t mean it is a good idea, and I think a merge with debloat of the target is what needs doing. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply