Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kanye West 2020 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 no consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. Numerically, slightly less than half of all participants in the discussion favor keeping, while slightly over a quarter favor deletion and the rest favor some other resolution, whether merging or redirecting or draftifying. Notably, preference for keeping has become substantially stronger over time, indicating developments with respect to the subject. Moreover, arguments for keeping are well-footed in coverage of the subject as a distinct subject in reliable sources, irrespective of whether the candidacy referenced ultimately turns out to be an unserious effort. BD2412 T 03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West 2020 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)

C'mon people. Kanye put out one tweet claiming he'll run for president. There's no confirmation, no filing of paperwork. But, naturally, a few publications ran articles on the tweet. The notion that he's actually running for president, rather than going for some publicity, fails WP:V. Not that he wrote the tweet, but that it actually means he's running for president. Some of the article is his back and forth on supporting Trump or Bernie. The rest of this article is WP:SYNTH. His policy on tax reform comes from one of his song lyrics? – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - Wait for the in-depth coverage in reliable sources and demonstration of lasting significance (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:N, WP:DELAY, etc.). Not opposed to a redirect to Kanye West, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is too soon. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep/Weak Draft - No doubt this has receive so much press, there's no denying that it is notable. This has been five years in the making. Remove the line about tax reform if you have a problem rather than propose deletion, okay? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Edited 15:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One tweet does not make for a notable event.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes piece, and it was two tweets actually :) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. We can always restore if it's not a promotional stunt. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- There is currently a single tweet and lots of sources reporting on the tweet. There is no other information that can be provided by reliable sources, so there shouldn't be an article. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 04:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Though I still think the campaign won't actually happen, the Forbes article has convinced me that this article is notable enough to keep for now. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- and now it's cancelled before it even began.[1] Should have stuck with my first instinct. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would that cancellation take away any notability achieved by the Forbes article? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify until we actually know what's going on. Spicy (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Kanye West#Politics. People are going to be searching for this in the coming days, but not enough info has been released yet to necessitate a separate article. Klohinx^talk 04:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is all coming from a single tweet. If this isn't just a crazy promotional stunt for a new song or album he is releasing, then reinstate once more details are released. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Wait until there is any evidence of formal paperwork or sincere intent to run, then put article back to mainspace once confirmed. If nothing happens for a while just redirect back to his own article Gaz405 (talk) 05:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Drafity: Given circumstances, it's hard to believe that this isn't something other than only a promotional stunt. Article can move back to main if formal details become confirmed, but for now, its best to redirect to the Politics section on Kanye West or draftify. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Drafity: Until we acquire registration confirmation on some state ballots. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 05:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Kanye West#Politics per Klohinx's suggestion. One or two sentences. To be fair, some note should be made of his latest typically delusional, time-wasting, attention-starved outburst. (West's, not Klohinx's.) --Lockley (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It may still be early days however the amount of coverage we are seeing in reliable 3rd party sources is enough to fulfill WP:GNG. It is likely that more coverage will come in the coming days (CRYSTAL aside). If it turns out that this is just a publicity stunt, then I'd say maybe delete but at the moment, I'm AGF and taking it on face value. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The C of E, we're seeing third-party sources write the exact same story based on one tweet. That's not significant in-depth coverage. It's news orgs looking for clicks on a slow news day. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu I think your personal belief on whether it should be receiving the coverage it has been getting or not is irrelevant when the outlets themselves conclude it is. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, that news orgs believe the content is WP:SENSATIONAL enough to get clicks on a holiday weekend does not make it notable per WP:GNG. From Vanity Fair: It is unclear if West, who once rapped “now, if I fuck this model, and she just bleached her asshole, and I get bleach on my T-shirt, I’ma feel like an asshole,” is speaking metaphorically.[2] - Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu The pointlessly crude citation you felt the need to reference aside, any individual with prominence the likes of Mr. West should receive due coverage when he attests to running in the current election. We have no actual reason to not believe him, previously he has stated he will run this election cycle. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, that was purposefully crude, by me and by Vanity Fair. This demonstrates that this "announcement" is sensationalism, which Wikipedia is WP:NOT. There's no reason to believe this is real. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu A lyric in one of Mr. West's songs doesn't translate to public statements made by him. Otherwise I assume you take Mr. Freddie Mercury's Bohemian Rhapsody as a murder confession. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken, I'm not the one who quoted the lyric. The supposedly "serious" sourcing did, to show what a sensational joke this is. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:The C of E. Koopinator (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too soon. No official website or FEC filing, which I doubt will ever materialize. KidAd (talk) 07:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per endorsments from important names. Sources are credible at this time. If in 48 hours this turns into air then I support Delete. At this time this is as notable as any other candidate.BabbaQ (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm reversing my prior decision after finding agreement with BabbaQ. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 2020 is NOT the year to delete articles about notable black men running for president! --24.112.201.120 (talk) 08:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — 24.112.201.120 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

TL;DR: Several users responded negatively to this reasoning and got into long arguments with the OP. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

24.112.201.120 This has nothing to do with race. We're simply discussing whether this event fits the criteria under Wikipedia's policies to warrant its own article. Please don't make this about race. You should edit your comment and properly rationalize why the article should be kept. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 20:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muboshgu This user is using race as the justification of their vote, and is unwilling to rationalize their argument. Furthermore, this user seems to have little experience with Wikipedia. Therefore, I believe their vote should be struck and discounted. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 01:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither me nor anyone else is obligated to have to respond to you. You may want to badger everyone who disagrees with you, but in all fairness, what difference does it really make to you if this article is kept? It is getting mainstream coverage in reliable sources and concerns a well-known and prominent individually running for the highest office in one of the most powerful countries in the world. As far as the black thing goes, well, unquestionably the whole BLM issue in the U.S., whether you think it's claims are legitimate or not, is one of the most covered stories of the year, with protests even taking place outside of the U.S. As such, the currently only well-known black man running for president at the moment during a time of such excessive media attention to black American men seems obviously notable. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How much coverage BLM is getting is irrelevant to this article. We don't keep articles just because the subject is black, we keep articles based solely on how notable they are in mainstream media. At the moment this is getting a bit of buzz, but it remains to be seen if it'll be notable outside of Kanye's own page (or if it'll even happen. So no, I'm afraid tying this to the George Floyd protests is a fallacious argument. Please see WP:INHERIT for more details: notability is not inherited. — Czello 07:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is inherited whether anyone likes it or not. You can call a banana an apple all you want, but it's still actually a banana. Wikipedia will not fall apart if this article is kept. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very weak justification for keeping an article. This isn't a newspaper. An article about an event this new and with such little legitimacy should never exist. Wikipedia won't fall apart if we keep the article? Imagine if we had that opinion for every AfD. Wikipedia would become a shitshow and turn into a tabloid newspaper instead of an encyclopedia. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incredibly weak justification for deleting an article concerning a topic covered in mainstream sources. No logical, rationale reason is likely to ever exist for removing this notable content covered in reliable sources. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to your earlier point, notability is not inherited. See the link I posted. And no Wikipedia won't fall apart if it's kept, but it won't fall apart if it's deleted either. Saying we should keep it because it's harmless is a weak, weak argument. Please see WP:N. — Czello 07:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is independently notable due to its coverage in multiple reliable sources. There's way more benefit to keeping an article, this article, concerning an independently notable topic than weakly deleting it, which is something I would expect from ISIS, but not encyclopedists. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT, such as WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SENSATIONAL, overrides GNG. Comparing Wikipedia to ISIS is also quite sensational so don't do that again. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not comparing Wikipedia to ISIS, but only deletionists, i.e. electronic book burners. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making this into a free speech issue. Keep mind that Wikipedia is not a place for free speech, see WP:NOTFREESPEECH. And the logical, rational reason for deleting this article is that it is not encyclopedic. It's simply covering a media event. Should Wikipedia contain an entirely new article for every single major media event? Again, this isn't a newspaper. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak argument. We don't keep articles just because of the times, nor because Kanye is black. We keep articles if we determine them to be notable enough. — Czello 07:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak reply. We keep articles because they are relevant and notable as is the case here. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an event is getting a lot of attention, it does not automatically deserve an article. This "campaign" is still very new, unofficial, and aside from a single tweet, unverifiable. Kanye has his own article where information about his political views and aspirations can go. There shouldn't be an entirely separate article on the premise of literally one tweet. If this isn't WP:NOTNEWS, then I don't know what is. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

News is encyclopedic or Wikipedic. No actual reason exists for deleting this article. Hmmm... I see you haven't edited since April, but show up again just to comment in this discussion. Why so much hate against Kanye? And stop striking comments of those you disagree with. Do you not trust the judgment of the admin closing discussions to weigh arguments one way or the other? --24.112.201.120 (talk) 07:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, news is not inherently encyclopedic. And plenty of reasons have been given for deletion -- your argument for keeping seems to be that Kanye is black, which is weak. Also, please assume good faith and stop assuming people have an agenda against some rapper. — Czello 08:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No non-weak reasons have been given for deletion of this inherently encyclopedic article. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "non-weak" reasons for deleting this article are that they fail the test described in WP:N, specifically point number 2. This article is what Wikipedia is not. Go read WP:NOTNEWS, specifically points 1 and 2. There's no way this media event deserves its own article. It should ideally just merged with Kanye's existing article. And you really wanna talk about my edits? You've made 25 edits throughout Wikipedia in total, 7 of them being in the sandbox. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest no engaging with this user as they are trolling or not willing to listen. — RealFakeKim T 09:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to listen to trolling. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just WP:DENY. Java Hurricane 17:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per The C of E and BabbaQ. What we are seeing here is an impressive array of reliable coverage. Buster Reynolds (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait too early to call, as it is a only a recent development. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 09:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Redirect It is being covered in reliable sources like CNN and the BBC, but not enough information has come out to make this a worthwhile article. --BSMIsEditing (talk) 11:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Redirect to Kanye West until he has made a verifiable bid, for example, he writes in a major publication about the decision, registers with the Federal election commision or otherwise confirms his legitimate intention to stand as a candidate. SoThisIsPeter (talk) 11:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#Politics per Klohinx until verifiable and clear efforts to set up campaign apparatus (e.g. FEC filing, signature-gathering for ballot access, hiring of campaign staffers, official website, etc.), otherwise WP:NOTNEWS. (This is Mélencron – just briefly returning from the dead to !vote here.) Mélencron2 (talk) 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge with Kanye West. WP:1E and not being independently notable. If something comes of this - fine. If not it's Cruft. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is going to WIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:441:4980:1630:55E8:51E9:2163:8BDF (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Keep as per notable endorsements. Black Lives Matter, ie Black Candidates (also) Matter, regardless of expletives like "Deez Nuts" --Ne0 (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ne0Freedom, this makes no sense. What does Black Lives Matter have to do with this? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ne0Freedom, I agree. This has nothing to do with the current movement or race in general. Please stop trying to make it about that, and edit your comment to provide a rational defense as to why the article should be kept. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupy Wallstreet protests evolved into Our Revolution political movement, which devolved back into the current protest situation in the US after Bernie Sanders withdrew from POTUS election nominations. In the meantime the authorities have been trying to suppress these movements, including creating anti-protest regulations, banning over 800 FB groups (Black Lives Matter, Cop Block, etc.), discrediting Bernie Sanders, deploying bayonets against protesters, etc. And Kayne said he would be using "Bernie Sanders' Principles" --Ne0 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Beyond it being technically too late to file for for candidacy, all that we have to go off of is conjecture from a single tweet. In the inconsequential chance that this is not an off-brand publicity maneuver, we can create a proper campaign page. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 15:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: There are a couple of snippets of interesting content in this, but when you boil it down, this article is mostly fluff, with some inaccuracies. For instance, the lead says he's already entered the race, when there's no evidence of that being remotely true. So, it will make for cool reading on the Kanye West page if this isn't just more of his patented fluff and BS. If he files, I will definitely want this to be its own article. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 00:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I misspoke when I stated that I would support this page when the FEC paperwork were filed. He's filed his initial paperwork, yet a ton of sources are saying that he's withdrawing and pulling everyone's leg. At this juncture, I'm fortifying my Merge vote, until further notice. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 18:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Alright, things have progressed and developed to the state that this article can have credence for staying. In the future, I would impart a word of caution about jumping the gun on things of this matter, as this has seemed more like a newspaper or advertisement for the majority of its existence. We'll see if Kanye is just using this to sell some albums or if he's at least semi-serious. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge and Redirect to Kanye West#Politics, where everyone can see his 5 years of randomly saying he's running and not running for president. Like many things Kanye West says, this is the media equivalent of Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement; it's Hollywood-style artificial news, like when celebrities officially hate each other or are officially dating on the advice of their publicity teams, except less believable. We don't keep articles about that sort of flatulence; WP:NOTPROMO #4 #5, and even #3, should apply even if it's "positive" gossip generated by the subject. More directly: WP:POLOUTCOMES usually results in mere candidates not even having a biographical article, let alone a separate article for their campaigns; Kanye West happens to be notable for other reasons, but this isn't it. The article itself points out that he's missed the independent candidate deadline in 6 states and the major-party deadlines in all 50. Anyone with Kanye West's resources knows that it's frivolous. Minor party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election has plenty of people who may or may not file for candidacy and don't qualify for campaign articles on Wikipedia. As for any claim of meeting WP:GNG, the counter to that is WP:SENSATIONAL: "Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous silly season reporting." --Closeapple (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if his announcement is just a publicly stunt, he might mount a significant campaign in this cycle even at this late stage due to his popularity and social influence. Riadse96 (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect West has NOT formed an actual campaign with the FEC. A Tweet is not actually a campaign. Plus, these policies listed aren't even from his 2020 campaign, but rather comments that he has made over time.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 15:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are comments made post-2015 when he initially announced his intentions to run and West's political views have received substantial media coverage. He has incorporated these views into his music and fashion brand too. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What I don't think his music or fashion brand really serve as credible sources of evidence that he actually intends to run for president. In Roddy Ricch's "The Box," he states "I'm a 2020 president candidate," but that didn't mean that Ricch actually had any plans to run for president. I agree that until there is an official filing, there shouldn't be a separate article regarding the event. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apoorv Chauhan: West publicly states his opinion on the 13th Amendment. He meets with Trump about it and incorporates it into his music. That's my point. We can know the difference between Roddy's lyrics and West's serious political statements with the use of reliable sources. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, again, that's just his political view. Anyone can have a political view without having any intention of actually becoming a politician. Yes, he may have "announced" his candidacy through Twitter, but unless there is an official FEC filing, there's no way it deserves its very own article. It's very possible that the Twitter statement was a publicity stunt, considering that pretty much every single deadline for filing has passed. Unless we have confirmation it's official, we should really be treating this as just a potential campaign, and not an official one. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's obvious that the election is still several months away and that there is still easily enough time for his campaign to ramp up and make it. Furthermore, it's currently still a weekend. Obviously most of the relevant state officials don't necessarily work on the weekend. And considering what kind of a legal mess of confusing technicalities the u.s. election system is, it could easily take at least a few (work)days for the lawyers to work out the formalities. If the campaign gets cancelled, sure, it'll make perfect sense to merge it somewhere into a bigger article dedicated to the election, but until then this article is obviously justified as its own page. GMRE (talk) 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you except there’s no campaign to cancel, and, as a fan and follower of Kanye’s Twitter shenanigans over the last 5 years, I have a reasonable degree of confidence that this camapaign will never exist. I think the only tweet he’s ever followed through on is “Ima fix Wolves” Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 18:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't care – Just another publicity stunt to get more free and easy media coverage. In the age of banal and contrived infotainment disguised as actual news coverage that is upon us, mass media goes into a feeding frenzy based upon a casual tweet. It's a great use of sensationalism to enrich his business ventures and music sales. With the pull the subject has on mass media, might as well use it. If West were to actually run for President of the United States in a serious manner, then an article would be warranted. Otherwise, I'm not seeing much of a "campaign" here, other than a campaign to utliize celebrity status to get free media attention and coverage; it's much cheaper than paying for advertising. Merge to Kanye West § Politics. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kanye West: Per Rhododendrites, no significant, in-depth coverage yet. Moreover, the campaign itself is not substantial enough to warrant its own page: there has been no FEC filing, there's no campaign manager, etc., etc. A section in Mr. West's Wikipedia biography, on the other hand, as it was when I edited it yesterday, would suffice for now; absent additional coverage (and, of course, more developments regarding his campaign). — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep: As much as I would like to see an FEC filing and all, the Forbes article has also pushed me to agree with those stating "Keep." — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 17:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wait until further coverage establishes that this campaign is going anywhere significant. Popcornfud (talk) 16:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with and Redirect to Kanye West. This feels like WP:SYNTH and/or WP:SPINOFF that just isn't necessary one day after he tweeted something. Waiting until there is confirmation on ballots or FEC filing to make this a separate article makes the most sense. TJScalzo (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign, but only because this hasn't been made official yet. Once this is confirmed and he's filled in the paperwork, I'd be in favour of the article existing. — Czello 17:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Wait/Merge~~Merge with Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. I agree with Czello, until it becomes an official filing it shouldn't have its own article. ~~However, give it a week, and see if it becomes official.~~ Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is WP:NOTNEWS territory right now. It can be covered at Kanye's main page for the time being. Should this be a serious endeavor that sees sustained coverage, then we can go about creating this page. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete WP:TOOSOON, as BBC noted this is likely just another publicity stunt and deserves a section in West's article but not its own article, unless/until a official filing is made. Just like other potential candidates who never started official campaigns (there are many, check the primary pages). EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 19:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The longer this goes on the less I'm sure about my opinion here so count me as a no opinion. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep drafted in case he's serious about running. Otherwise merge the well-written and sourced text on his political positions into West's bio article. JJARichardson (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Keep as his run appears to be legitimate now. JJARichardson (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I appreciate this article. Please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:7B00:5E7:3CAE:1562:3BB:490 (talk) 21:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good reason. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Kanye West article for now This may develop into something, it may not. However, a main article reeks of falling foul of WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait and see. Notable for whatever it is, publicity trick or not, only right now, it's not article worthy. Take it to his mainspace article for now. doktorb _words^deeds 21:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Latest publicity stunt by aging white people's favorite rapper. Or just delete, that works too. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete or Draftify, or Merge and Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign (or elsewhere on his bio article). The article can be recreated if an actual campaign materializes. For now, it is clearly WP:TOOSOON (see also WP:NOTNEWS) to have a separate page. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Changing from my previous argument, which I've stricken out above. The WP:GNG criteria is now satisfied.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - note it in his BLP. This is not TMZ. soibangla (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) I cannot believe we’re still even talking about this. soibangla (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There isn't a campaign yet, simple as that. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to inflame mediocre trolling. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 01:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, leaning towards Keep - I say we keep it, at least for now. While we can speculate that this is a publicity stunt, we should take his words at face value unless it becomes clear that he is not running. I presume that if West intends on filing with the FEC, that his lawyer will assist and that it will take more than a day of time. In addition, his wife as well as Elon Musk quickly endorsed him. West was recently in a photo with Musk at Musk's home. While the caption of the photo isn't political, this photo along with the sudden endorsement could indicate that he told people close to him beforehand and that it wasn't a sudden decision. -Caleb_1223 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete/redirect A tweet is not a campaign, far too early. Reywas92^Talk 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kanye West SecretName101 (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now undecided SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Kayne West. The information is out there and readily available, but a separate article at this time is WP:UNDUE and WP:TOOSOON. I'm all for a separate article when there's more development, but for now, it should be included in a section of the parent article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kanye West - They are reported by many reliable sources such as CNN, ABC News, TheGuardian and many more hence notable. Can remain in the Kanye West article. KRtau16 ^«Talk» 07:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as West has taken official steps towards running for President as reported here and he has filed his run with the FEC as reported here. KRtau16 (talk) 01:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The closer we get to Election Day, the more news there will be about his campaign. Deleting this article will only come in our favor if he decides to drop out. Otherwise, it will make no sense to delete this article only to create it again. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that this page has a lot more discussion than other articles for deletion shows it is a worthy event. Alextheconservative (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I buy this argument. It being notable on Wikipedia AFD discussions isn't the same as notability in the world itself. — Czello 09:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of long AfD's end in deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Draftify into Kanye West. Wikipedia isn’t news, but I suppose a very likely publicity stunt merits some mention on the main subject’s page. If it becomes a genuine campaign, then keep it. 39.57.187.132 (talk) 11:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kanye West#Politics, per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL, and various other policies cited by similarly-minded voters above, who noticed the media's patterns of jumping on brief tweets on a slow news day. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Procedural Comment - Good luck to the Admin who gets stuck with this one. Allow me to add that the article needs a more accurate title if it survives this process. It is not a "campaign" because that requires formal paperwork with the Federal Election Commission, not to mention building a team of advisors, launching an advertising effort, organizing rallies, etc. At best it is an "announcement" and that or a similar term should be in the article's title... again that is IF it remains as an intact article, which I have already opposed above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Given his name recognition and wealth, he would make an impact on the race at least the size of that Evan McMullin made in 2016 (McMullin launched his bid in early August 2016). A decent review of his political positions, his viability as a candidate, and his overall favorability/unfavorability ratings that merit mention and would make his main article too long (or possibly inclusion in a separate article about his political positions.) It's easier to delete this in 2-3 weeks if no further action is ever taken than resurrect it if by Friday the 17th he's filing active petition drives and has filed FEC paperwork. If he hasn't even filed any FEC paperwork or done anything further by the 17th I'd delete it at that point. For stronger deletionists: I don't see the harm in waiting 48-72 hours to see if there is some there there as he did get endorsements, his wife seems to be taking this more seriously, and this is the first time he's actively talked about running for President during an active Presidential cycle (typically he seems to talk about running 2+ years from the election.) 65.51.198.50 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While I'm a strong advocate for using tweets as a legit source (as long they're issued by the subject in question or another RS); the entire foundation of this article is a single tweet, and so far no RS has reported that either Kayne or his -if he has any- team have started to fill any legal paperwork regarding this WP:TOOSOON. -Gouleg (Talk • Contribs) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two tweets, actually. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Kanye West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rushtheeditor (talk • contribs)
Delete. West is not a serious candidate. He has already missed several filing deadlines and has done nothing to organize a campaign.Calmecac5 (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge I think it is definitely a notable topic. --81.135.63.31 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Kanye West#Politics: Feels like a publicity stunt, we can recreate this if this is a serious campaign. — csc^-1 20:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A PR stunt and could be recreated if he files legal paperwork 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 21:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as long as this is an unofficial, non-FEC filed campaign I don't think it's notable enough for an article. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete ~~With no FEC paperwork or actual display of intent beyond a single tweet, this is an article talking at length about something that isn't actually going to happen.~~ KingForPA (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still speedy delete: With various sources reporting that this is already over, it's time to wrap this up. ~~At this point this AfD has just devolved into a single user canvassing because they don't want their pet article deleted.~~ KingForPA (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:PA. Attacking one user is unrelated to discussing the subject's notability. Also, you have made multiple comments through out this AfD process unrelated to any substantial update about the campaign. Instead, your comments appear to be you just pushing your !vote for deletion (possibly bludgeoning?) Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC); Edited 14:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete All he has done is tweet. Put a section in his biography until he actually runs instead of just announcing he will run.Thanks, (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until Kanye has filed with FEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:E00:44C0:519B:6081:3FAA:D8FA (talk) 03:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge The article is small and can fit in the main article. — RealFakeKim T 09:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It can also be expanded and kept separate, which is the smarter choice. --24.112.201.120 (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable enough, sourceful enough, and impactful enough for an independent article. Merge and redirect if not notable enough to stand alone. --Deepfriedokra (talk)
Keep per BabbaQ's reasoning. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As above. Mahuset (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until he makes it official with the FEC You're not legally a candidate after a Twitter announcement. It takes a lot more to be official. He needs to make an FEC filing before this article is warranted. The gratuitous and unnecessary statement about him or Owens being "alt-right" is also about as factual or encyclopedic as calling Bill Clinton a Communist. J390 (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the section dedicated to his politics in his article.DMT biscuit (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Merge to his own page until he filed the paperwork. It's not an actual campaign yet. Corachow (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Kayne West unless West actually runs for President (i.e. files the nomination paperwork). Java Hurricane 01:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is way too early and premature to even have an article of this based only off a couple of tweets from West himself? There hasn't even been a proper campaign for it to warrant this (article) title or the article itself. Also, it doesn't matter if sources claim he is being serious, we should wait until he/officials officially confirms. Also open to actually Draftify until and if his presidential run is confirmed. AshMusique (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – West has doubled down and done an entire piece with Forbes about his run: Kanye West Says He’s Done With Trump—Opens Up About White House Bid, Damaging Biden And Everything In Between. I believe it's just a matter of time before he files his paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 12:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kill me now Keep Held off commenting earlier as wasn't sure if this was a one off publicity stunt that would be gone in a week but Forbes article has tipped me. Seemingly whether it goes anywhere or not the WP:RS coverage is enough to retain the article. *sigh* Glen 13:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as more info about it is available now, per Glen Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have changed my vote to keep. JJARichardson (talk) 14:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - until there is actually a campaign. At present there isn't... The Land (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not a frequent contributor so I hope I am doing this right. I know his running mate. the fact that she agreed gives me !Personal! opinion that he at least is presenting this as a serious plan. 2605:6000:1521:CABC:C820:1CA9:32AB:10F (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)JustSayin[reply]

I would suggest that you encourage her to speak out to a reliable source so that her comments can be included in the article. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 15:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Pretty clear this is developing into a serious thing. Kingofthedead (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has enough serious coverage to meet WP:GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 19:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above / WP:GNG. Jokullmusic 19:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's nothing but a silly stunt. WQUlrich 20:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:TOOSOON. It could just be a promotional stunt. We should at least wait until there’s an FEC filing. That’s a very easy thing to do. One only has to fill out a one-page form. Even perennial and "joke" candidates typically do it. Take a look at the one sent in by Marianne Williamson (I’m not saying she’s a joke, it’s just an example form): [3]. If he hasn’t done this, there’s obviously no organized campaign yet to write an article about.— Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge unless he files with the FEC. Keep if he ends up filing. The amount of coverage regarding the background and announcement of his run (including the stunt in 2015) seems substantial enough if he becomes an actual candidate.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the vast amount of sources over not only the past days but past years has rendered this article into its own stand-alone article. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until more notable coverage emerges. This sounds like a rumor being interpreted WP:TOOSOON as a real campaign. Free Media Kid! 05:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – this seemed like a publicity stunt upon the first mention, but West has reaffirmed that he is indeed running. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until we see if this a publicity stunt, an odd unusual way to get Trump re-elected (that one is based on seeing this) or an actual campaign. I’m not accusing him of any of the above, just that we need to wait to see which one it is.--Rockchalk7 17 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNG there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources which are independent of the subject in order to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Whether or not this is a serious campaign, publicity stunt, something to support Trump or something else entirely, it is still true that the campaign meets the GNG criteria. A quick google search shows significant dedicated articles on the subject from all major media outlets which are reliable independent sources on the subject. A discussion on the legitimacy of the campaign and ramifications is content for the article itself and does not influence whether or not it is notable. A merge could be appropriate but doesn't really work as the main article is already >90kb of readable prose and therefore is at a size where it should be considered for splitting rather than merging.Tracland (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Following comments below I would support this being reformatted into a new article titled as Political views of Kanye West until such time as he does actually file (if he ever does file).Tracland (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: West says he's running. It might be a publicity stunt, but even if it is, he claims to be running and merits a page on that basis alone. MetaTracker (talk) 12:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Even if he’s getting a lot of attention, there may not be enough content to write an article about. We have practically no reliable information about the details of his campaign or his platform. The article is currently filled with WP:SYNTH, and removing that wouldn’t leave us with any meaningful amount of content. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep indefinitely as this is a still-developing event. Merge with Kanye West if and only if we can finally conclude that his candidacy was a mere publicity stunt. Also see WP:RAPID. YX1 (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Musk has already withdrawn support and Kanye has yet to file for the election. Are we sure we want to claim a crystal ball with this topic? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 13:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Musk did not withdraw support. He simply tweeted: "We may have more differences of opinion than I anticipated". Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 14:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, Kanye simply tweeted that he would be running for president. Is that enough to create a Wikipedia article? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto You're playing loose with the truth here. What Mr. Musk tweeted was an acknowledgment that he doesn't share all the same views as Mr. West, not a clear recension of his endorsement. May I also add that he went out of his way to delete said-tweet as well? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DarthBotto The question is whether or not it is 'notable' not whether a tweet is enough for an article. A tweet can potentially be notable, though I am included to agree with you that a tweet on its own in this context is unlikely to be notable. But there is more content than just a tweet. Weight needs also to be placed on the previous political statements that have been made by him and the significant media coverage including the recent Forbes interview. (I'm not saying I agree with the attention this is getting, I think it's ridiculous that is getting any attention, but (ignoring my personal views) it does appear to meet notability requirements).Tracland (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It might be a publicity stunt but it's clearly notable and just because he hasn't formally filed yet doesn't necessarily he may not run. I recall that Donald Trump did not file until a week after his announcement. We can always revisit the issue if the situation changes.FN17 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People will be searching for this, and even if it is a publicity stunt for a new album, it was a a presidential run. As FN17 said, Donald Trump never did the paper work until a week later. Elon also did not withdraw support. Rushtheeditor (talk) 2:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

What people will do in the future is pure speculation. It may be talked about enough in the future for WP:GNG to be met, but that’s irrelevant to whether the subject is sufficiently notable now. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar Comparing this to Trump's run and using it as justification is, frankly, ridiculous, seeing as that was in June the year before the election. It's July of the election year, and independent candidates are rapidly running out of time to collect signatures for ballot access. Obviously that's not a problem for a Republican campaign in June 2015. It is a problem for an independent candidate in July 2020. KingForPA (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I would agree that time is clearly not on Kanye's side. However, my understanding is that as of this moment he could still appear on the ballot in enough states to garner over 400 electoral votes. Even if he missed the July deadlines altogether he could still be eligible for over 300. Even if he had been running an independent campaign for the past 2 years I'm doubtful he would win any, much less enough to win, but it's still a mathematical possibility. My intent in bringing up Trump's 2016 campaign wasn't to say that their candidacies are identical. However, I distinctly remember numerous commentators saying that the fact that Trump hadn't filed was a sign that his candidacy wasn't serious and this was a publicity stunt (the article I linked quotes Karl Rove to that end), yet Trump ultimately went on to file a week later. My point being that I don't think we can take his lack of official paperwork, at this point, as a sign that his candidacy is not serious.FN17 (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If he decides against running, I would suggest renaming and reformatting into a Political views of Kanye West article. JJARichardson (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd support this proposalTracland (talk) 05:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This could be a publicity stunt but it received enough attention and is notable enough for an article, as many before me have said. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 11:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: because the press will be all over Kanye West for 4 months over Kanye's political rantings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:640:C600:3C20:E95F:A093:461B:C142 (talk) 18:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 2601:640:C600:3C20:E95F:A093:461B:C142 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What may or may not happen in the future is irrelevant to present notability. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Given his stature as a national figure, this is obviously going to generate more than enough news coverage to fill up the article. More than enough to fulfil GNG. Patiodweller (talk) 21:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Patiodweller: Sure, but I think you’re missing the point. GNG has to be satisfied now for the article to exist. The likelihood of GNG being met in the future is an entirely subjective prediction (see WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL), and is irrelevant to whether the article should exist now. This is what WP:TOOSOON is about. The subject is not sufficiently notable now. If it becomes more notable in the future, we can create the article then. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not "sufficiently notable now"? You have a piece by Forbes, reactions from Trump three times now, Elon Musk's comments alone have received coverage, a poll has been conducted, West has continued his campaign with more tweets, etc... Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 13:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the answer to your question would be that most, if not all, of the sources you've mentioned have been about people wondering if West is just pulling everyone's leg, as he hasn't done anything besides tweeting. This seems like a crystal ball article that could be merged with Kanye West. If he files his campaign or begins actually campaigning, I'd be happy to vote for this to be its own independent article - it'd certainly be an interesting one! DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to wide media coverage on his campaign. --108.205.159.35 (talk) 22:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC) — 108.205.159.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

~~Redirect to Kanye West and/or Draftify~~: Kanye hasn't filed with the FEC, so there isn't a real "campaign" until he does so. There appear to be some keep arguments that this will be newsorthy. To that, I say WP:TOOSOON. If a Political positions of Kanye West article needs to be split from Kanye's article, I will support it as long as there is good reason. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~Changing vote to Weak keep but move and rescope unless he files with the FEC:~~ After looking at the Kanye West article, it appears that that article is too long already so I think that merging this may not be the best idea at this point. Unless he files with the FEC, I believe that the best option would be to rescope to focus more on his political positions and move to Politics of Kanye West, though I will note that the political positions do take up a large chunk of this article. Username⁶⁸⁹² 01:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Remove my vote.~~ See below. Discussions on splitting the Kanye West article can happen after this AfD. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar The standard for a candidate/campaign to be notable as set by the Theresa Greenfield AfD and later deletion reviews is clearly not met by this, either. I already cast my own vote on this, but this is something that should be considered here that a lot of contributors aren't aware of. KingForPA (talk) 20:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that if the standard set there was overturned, I would support keeping this page. It's not that I personally feel this article should be deleted, but I feel that it doesn't meet the standards set. KingForPA (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A merge to Kanye West#Politics would be way too large for that article, and draftifying would only spread the Kanye campaign-related information across several articles instead of keeping it all in one place. While I personally am skeptical to whether or not Kanye is actually serious (especially since he has done this before!), the topic is undoubtedly receiving tons of news coverage and is thus notable. lovkal (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Until we know that he has actualy registered with the FEC, perhaps the article should be renamed? Kanye West 2020 presidential aspirations, or something. lovkal (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is no clear resolution, but appears to be more of a trend towards keeping, including some previous "delete" votes being changed to "keep". Additional time is needed to see how this trend develops, or of it is anomalous.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This "campaign" may not be serious, may go nowhere, and may be nothing more than a publicity stunt. But, based on the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, it is a highly notable publicity stunt, and so the article should stay. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: If Kanye's campaign isn't serious, it should probably be moved. I think that if this is kept before Kanye files with the FEC, I think this should be moved to Presidential aspirations of Kanye West oder Politics of Kanye West (obviously both of these moves would require scope change and rewrite, though I think that it shouldn't be like this if the campaign hasn't filed with the FEC). Username⁶⁸⁹² 03:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can cross that bridge when we get to it, Username6892. The question before us now is whether the article should be kept, rather than whether it should be renamed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to more appropriate article title until he actually files with the FCC. Otherwise the article is miss-leading, but that aside it's probably notable enough to be kept at this point. It's just conjecture on my part, but I feel like him picking a running mate shows he's at least serious enough about it right now for there to be some sustained coverage for the near future. It's not like he can't keep running a faux campaign even if misses the filing deadlines either and then be like "come on guys, I got all these votes" or blame it on the "system" when he drops out five months from or something. Either way, this will be getting coverage for awhile. Just change the name of the article until it's legally official so Wikipedia isn't taking a position or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye_West#Politics. The bulk of this article is background and synthesis of positions and comments taken before West ever 'announced his candidacy'. It is the job of daily news organizations to churn out new content every day, not an encyclopedia. We should summarize events in the news, a step above the scrum, not race to incorporate every breaking click-bait headline. --Animalparty! (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The political positions are all after he announced his intent to run back in September 2015. Most of the views are also adapted from the Forbes piece specifically about his 2020 campaign run. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#Politics - there is simply no substance to this story beyond a single tweet. The campaign as such does not exist, he has filed no paper-work. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The presence of poll data, for example, indicates that the is significant coverage in reliable sources. St Anselm (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ Meets WP:GNG- significant coverage in reliable sources. ~~The "campaign" may not serious, but that does not affect notability.~~ Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 15:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep.~~ Given how widespread coverage is, WP:GNG has definitely been met. However, WP:NOT arguments are a thing, which I did not previously take into account. This article passes WP:NOT because of the Oklahoma ballot thing and the FEC filing. Otherwise, it would be "Kayne West Presidential Aspirations 2020", which violates WP:SENSATIONAL and probably WP:NOTNEWS (unless there are compelling reasons otherwise). I don't find the Oklahoma ballot thing and the FEC filing to be the greatest reasons, so I changed my !vote to Weak Keep. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 17:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above, but the South Carolina campaign event, the 'push' to get onto the ballot in South Carolina, and the "website" have convinced me. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#Politics. Nika2020 (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This fully meets the WP:GNG requirements. In the event this turns out to be a flash-in-the-pan publicity stunt by the gregarious Mr. West rather than a serious campaign, then there would be no problem revisiting the subject for another consideration of its encyclopedic value. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A second poll has been conducted and Musk has clarified his support once again. Though this may be an unorthodox campaign without FEC papers, it meets WP:GNG requirements without a doubt. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 23:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, not having any paperwork at all doesn't make your campaign "unorthodox", it makes you not a candidate with no ballot access, write-in or otherwise. KingForPA (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What's the July release date for his new album? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil6875 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whether it's serious or not, it's obviously notable given the massive media coverage. Smartyllama (talk) 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- seems like the campaign has now been cancelled before it ever began.[4] Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 03:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the comments come from one individual on July 9th, while others such as Musk have made comments since. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 04:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West has not denied his "campaign" is over or otherwise commented on the matter. If this still mattered to him, he'd have said something about it by now. It's very clear that this was just a passing thought he had which he likely won't revisit. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 16:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You spoke too soon. West just began filing his FEC paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign, West is 'running' entirely for publicity, and it doesn't reasonably meet WP:10 year test. It does appear to meet WP:GNG just not WP:10 year test -- at least in my mind. That's why a redirect is warranted. West's hasn't even formally filed, he's missed a number of state deadlines, and he appears to be winding down the hype now. West's comment about reconsidering for 2024 is telling. It's just publicity, and we shouldn't fall into WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper or in this instance a tabloid. Philotimo (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, it's important to review WP:What Wikipedia is not as noted in my first response, but he's surprised me and remained in the race, gotten on the ballot in Oklahoma, and is planning to hold a rally in South Carolina. I still believe his run is entirely about publicity, but he's making this a big story. I've noted it's WP:GNG in my last post but not WP:10 year test, however, considering he's still in it and is continuing to generate publicity, I'm beginning to think it might actually meet WP:10 year test. I'm definitely open to reconsidering my vote if he does end it soon, but for now it's a weak keep for me. This will likely close as WP:What "no consensus" means though, which is probably the best outcome for this very split case. Philotimo (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AfD has outlived the "campaign" itself [5]. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: I honestly laughed when I saw this. It's sad but true. Philotimo (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I'd like for it to be deleted, the coverage and polling the "campaign" has received is significant, and there is too much well sourced information in this to be reasonably merged into the main Kanye article. Jonas1015119 (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Many outlets are now reporting that Kanye has "dropped out". Many of the editors arguing to keep the article did so on the (flawed) grounds that this would develop into something more noteworthy over time. It clearly hasn't. Even if we were to write an article about a stunt, there is just not enough coverage in reliable secondary sources to document it. We don't even have sources telling us whether this is a stunt or not. West has not commented on the recent reports, which I think is telling of his passing interest in the matter. If editors still want this kept, they should make new arguments for why they think it is notable. What are we to write an article about? A stunt or a campaign? There isn't enough coverage to write a solid article about either of those. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 16:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree that this discussion needs to be revisited in light of these new developments. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: As you've been spearheading the article, what's your stance now that he's abandoned the campaign after a week and never filed? DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the fact that he was campaigning for two days made this a campaign, paperwork or not. It is notable. However, TMZ is now reported that Kanye has in fact filed his FEC paperwork. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. It appears that West has abandoned his campaign plans before ever qualifying for a ballot anywhere. This campaign was a memorable activity but it was so short-lived that it doesn't warrant a separate article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm withdrawing my recommendation as West has reportedly qualified for one state ballot and has not confirmed his withdrawal from the race. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD has been running for longer than Kanye was "running" for president. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And here we have a case study in WP:DELAY and WP:NOTNEWS. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West#2020 presidential campaign. A mention on Kanye's page make sense for a campaign that never happened and was never truly real. A whole article does not. Ganesha811 (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Kanye has filed his FEC paperwork via TMZ. More reliable sources may be reporting on this soon enough. I know that many !votes depended on whether paperwork would be filed or not. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 17:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the paperwork for those that don't trust TMZ. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said below, I don't get why people are caring about filing FEC paperwork. Perennial candidates who aren't notable file with the FEC. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, too. Absence of FEC paperwork indicated that this was not notable, but its presence alone does not automatically indicate that it is. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nice4What: This is another WP:CRYSTALBALL argument: "More reliable sources may be reporting on this soon enough." That is a prediction, and is completely irrelevant to notability now. Please explain why you think it is sufficiently notable now. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a CRYSTAL argument, it's just that TMZ breaks celebrity news first and I even linked to the paperwork, so don't try to use that to downplay my comment. How does this campaign not meet WP:GNG? Polling, actual on-ground campaigning, staff has been hired, polling data conducted, reactions from notable individuals Trump and Musk, cover by many reliable sources including Forbes already, etc... Is this all based on personal opinions against West at this point? I didn't think that paperwork mattered at any point, but it's what many people's !votes depended on. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BURDEN of showing verifiablity and notability rests with those adding content. You have to show that it is notable. We're obviously not going to find reliable secondary sources that say that it isn't notable. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't baselessly accuse others of editing in bad faith: "Is this all based on personal opinions against West at this point?" We're making reasonable arguments that have nothing to do with personal feelings about Kanye. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very clear that this article has significant coverage and uses reliable/secondary/independent sources. "Presumed" coverage can be argued, based on the fact that the campaign's every development has been reported on since July 4th. I know of WP:BURDEN, but it's quite explicit that this subject passes WP:GNG. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've said that there are numerous polls, campaign staff, active campaigning, etc., but you haven't actually provided reliable secondary sources. What is this based on beyond the Forbes article? TMZ is not a reliable source. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no, presumed coverage cannot be used to establish notability. Please read WP:CRYSTALBALL. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poll (used by FiveThirtyEight), Campaign Staff / Active Campaigning. Again, I suggest you go through the references. Okay, keep invoking CRYSTAL but I'll be sure to link the multiple sources reporting this by the end of the day. Already picked up by Uproxx and NME. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will invoke CRYSTAL whenever you claim that presumed future coverage establishes notability. I have seen this poll, and one poll does not a notable campaign make. Other campaigns with their own articles have been the subject of numerous polls. Furthermore, all three articles you linked to just now indicate that it's unclear if he's even been running, and that there have been reports of him "dropping out." Regardless, UPROXX, NME, and New York Magazine are not reliable sources. They are tabloids that routinely report on just about anything celebrities like Kanye do. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I claimed that once, but you keep repeating it. You are wrong about New York Magazine, it is listed as generally reliable under WP:RSP. And so what if it is unclear if he dropped out or not...? The main concern here is whether FEC papers were filed. I feel that there is no point in continuing this conversation, as you keep circling back to earlier points. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main concern here is not whether FEC papers were filed, it's whether this "campaign" meets WP:GNG. And the context in which we use sources matters. If this is a political campaign, why are mainstream news sources not reporting on his campaigning, positions, polling, etc.? We can't base an article about an entertainer's campaign aspirations on entertainment media. They'd be covering him even it he wasn't running. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting on his polling: The Fader, The Hill. Reporting on his policies: CNN, Pitchfork, Al Jazeera. Campaigning: Intelligencer. Read the article, read the references, or do a quick search. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is very heavy on entertainment news websites. I've read the article and I've looked at the references. Everything on this is coming from an entertainment perspective. Even the CNN article is under "CNN Entertainment." The Hill is probably the only reliable secondary source to pull from this, and it just covers the singular poll you linked to before. Every source you've provided above primarily cites the Forbes piece, so these are closer to being tertiary sources than secondary ones. So far, we've got two things supporting the argument in favor of keeping the article: the Forbes piece, and the poll. Those are not enough to establish notability. I will easily be convinced that it is notable if you provide a healthy number of secondary sources that are reliable for politics, not entertainment. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, look at what is cited at Pete Buttigieg 2020 presidential campaign. We've got Politico, The New York Times, CNN, Vox, The Guardian, FOX News, CNBC, etc. Perhaps most importantly, these sources did their own reporting on the Buttigieg campaign. All the sources provided for Kanye derive their information almost entirely from the Forbes piece. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An entertainment stance is not voided by WP:GNG. West is primarily known as a musician/celebrity, of course that would make sense. I believe you have your own unique opinion of what meets the notability criteria, but The Washington Post and The New York Times/Reuters reported on the campaign under their 'politics' subsection. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd, Mélencron2, Pennsylvania2, TJScalzo, Shivertimbers433, KingForPA, 2600:8800:E00:44C0:519B:6081:3FAA:D8FA, J390, Molandfreak, and Lovkal: Pinging users that mentioned FEC paperwork in their !votes. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 18:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, please avoid bludgeoning this AfD and let the process play out without constant the replies and updates. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 19:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KidAd: People said it was one tweet, that changed. People said paperwork is needed, that changed. Somebody else added an update when the campaign was supposedly cancelled. These updates are crucial to the AfD process. There are other users replying plenty throughout the AfD, I suggest you ping them as well. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice4What, you're doing an awful lot of canvassing here. I'd suggest you give your next moves some thought before continuing about your merry way. And no, I'm definitely not changing my vote either, in light of the news that he's already hired and fired his entire staff. KingForPA (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KingForPA: Don't make a personal attack falsely accusing me of canvassing; I suggest that you strike your comments. If you read the article, you'd know the chronology that Kanye supposedly fired his staff on July 9th but has since filed paperwork on July 15th. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that you're canvassing is a personal attack, but you insulting editors' reading comprehension isn't. I think that sums it up much better than I can, really! KingForPA (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a still a personal attack despite what I said, you know? Also, I'm saying that the news that he's already hired and fired his entire staff took place a week ago and there has been campaign developments since then. I'm not criticizing your reading comprehension, but maybe you were not aware of when these events took place based on your comment. And instead of striking your comments in good faith, you continue with your remarks? Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had already seen the information you mentioned when you pinged me and nine other users - and, most interestingly, not the users who changed their votes to keep based on the Forbes piece. I will not be striking out anything. Thanks! KingForPA (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Forbes article and the FEC filing are unrelated (wow). Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 20:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, FEC papaers have since been filed. Username⁶⁸⁹² 18:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand people saying !keep or !delete based on whether FEC paperwork is filed or not. Filing FEC paperwork isn't a notability criteria. It's all about meeting WP:GNG while considering WP:NOT. Lots of candidates file FEC paperwork who aren't notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the people who argued based on that, and I'd like to clarify that I meant only that the lack of a filing indicated that it wasn't notable, not that the presence of one would indicate that it was. I said that filing is very easy, so the fact that he didn't file was telling. That doesn't mean, though, that filings alone make a campaign serious and/or notable. Like you've pointed out, many perennial and joke candidates file. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Originally I did say the campaign was notable enough if he did file, but that was definitely a mistake. As a developing story, I wanted to see if the campaign was active in doing at least the bare minimum to be legitimate. After all, Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign exists without high-profile publications writing about it. Most of the coverage surrounding West's campaign was specifically asking the question of whether or not this is/was serious. As a <10 day stunt with little effort to actually get on ballots, I would lean towards merging some of the information into the main article.--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 19:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The WP and NYT articles, for example, are all about questioning whether this is an actual campaign or not. Like I've said before, this could be an article about a promotional stunt, but we need sources saying that's the case. Right now, nobody knows what's going on (and all coverage revolves around the Forbes piece), so we can't really make an article solidly about either a joke campaign like Supreme's or a serious campaign. We can't have it both ways. @Nice4What: An entertainment basis does not void WP:GNG, but this is not currently written from an entertainment perspective, nor do you appear to be arguing for that. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 19:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filing with the FEC doesn't prove that a campaign is notable, but not filing with the FEC is almost always a sign that the campaign is not notable. (Rare exception: Ralph Nader 1996 presidential campaign, where the candidate purposely avoided raising or spending $5,000 which would have required him to file with the FEC.) Similarly, being listed in the Internet Movie Database doesn't prove that a film is notable, but not being listed in the IMDb is a good sign that the film is not notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect This was funny, but it doesn't deserve a full page. It's a joke and was never a legitamate or serious campaign. It should just be a section of a more relavant significant page noq. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Mr. West withdrew his candidacy, I think we can bring this debate to a much-needed conclusion. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. GreenFrogsGoRibbit (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he dropped out. Some folks put more effort into this article than he did into his "campaign". WQUlrich 07:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update – The Oklahoma State Election Board has announced via Twitter: "Independent presidential candidate Kanye West has qualified for the General Election ballot in Oklahoma." Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would give him access to just seven electoral votes. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which would show that he is actively and successfully campaigning. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't. It would show he filed at some point. I think the most telling thing is that Kanye has not commented on all these reports of him dropping out. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 22:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make any assumptions based on Kanye's silence. To qualify in Oklahoma, ~~you need 5,000 signature and need to spend $5,000 on a filing fee. That means that work had to be done in the state to have ballot access.~~ Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he only submitted his paperwork today and didn't have to collect a single signature: [6] — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 00:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He had to pay $35,000 then, which isn't much considering his fortune but may still indicate a worthwhile campaign. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tartan357, personally I'm finding your commentary on almost everyone who disagrees with you somewhat tiring. Your name is splashed all over this AFD. How about just letting the process play out? Glen 18:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my apologizes. I've now said everything I wanted to, and I ended up changing my !vote anyway in light of recent developments. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 05:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I originally thought this was a joke that would never go anywhere, but West is now on the ballot in Oklahoma and his campaign has been covered constantly for a reasonably long period of time. His campaign no longer has WP:NOTNEWS problems in my opinion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Obviously passes WP:GNG, irrespective of whether it's serious, and whether it's proceeding or folding. The Kanye campaign article as it stands now is already much-better developed than the Trump campaign article two weeks after he announced his candidacy.[7] Trump's campaign was also considered a joke or a publicity stunt back then, and Kanye said in his 2018 song "Ye vs. the People": "ever since Trump won, it proved that I could be President."[8] Now please @all go fight to delete the irrelevant, un-serious, already-folded, and insignificantly-covered Vermin Supreme 2020 presidential campaign. — JFG ^talk 22:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: @Nice4What: This was WP:TOOSOON at first, but coverage of his appearance on the Oklahoma ballot has been wide enough that I think WP:GNG is now satisfied. I say "weak" because it's still unclear where Kanye himself stands on the campaign as of right now, with most reports still declaring that they're unsure if he was ever seriously running due to his silence. That poses issues for clarity in the article, but those issues aren't insurmountable and are likely to be temporary. Seeing the following articles (especially the AP coverage) led me to change my mind: [9], [10], [11], [12]. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 02:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as he has filed FEC paperwork and furthermore is an extremely notable individual. Stavd3 (talk) 22:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting closure: Consensus would appear to have been reached, in favor of Keep. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 16:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a PR stunt, and not worth more than a sentence or a paragraph on his page mentioning this laughable event. Zinnober9 (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I was pro-deletion a week ago, the amount of media coverage, proper FEC forms, and apparent paid campaign operatives have made it clear to me at least that this page should be kept. U-dble (talk) 21:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Kanye and/or his team has filed legal documents with the FEC, which should be enough to sustain notability. RodeoWrld (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People want to search for this, and we should keep it even if it was a puplicity stunt. User:Hockeyisthebest123 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I also would've been pro-deletion about a week ago but at this stage it seems clear that he is going to participate as he and his team have already filed in the forms in several states, they have potential candidates and even though he missed some deadlines he has a lot of clout and he can definitely influence the election notably ― it should not matter that the reason for the campaign is publicity or whatever. TaylorSnail (talk) 22:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayne West. It's a single event. Nfitz (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Kayne"? I think it's "Kanye". – numbermaniac 02:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has got massive mainstream coverage. He has registered in Oklahoma now so it is official. Add to that polling 8% in some polls. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He just finished an official campaign rally with numerous attendees...many people who had done far less in their campaigns have articles up for said campaigns nonetheless. Tom Danson (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First campaign rally. A page is better than none. Sgt. bender (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Changing my decision, it appeared that this campaign was a complete joke about 2 weeks ago, but now it seems to have solidified a bit more - at least worthy enough to keep an article. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 23:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WesSirius (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the recent news that he has seemingly now qualified to be on the ballot for at least one state. Seems this is really happening. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG a hundred times over. Just held first "campaign event" and is achieving ballot access. We have plenty of articles about pretextual presidential campaigns without a goal other than winning, which are many. That is no reason to delete. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 01:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not a keep when first announced for sure, but definitely one now. -Xbony2 (talk) 02:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since he now has an FCC filing. RBolton123 (talk) 02:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the news that he has actually held a rally for his campaign. Even if he doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, he seems to be taking this seriously. – numbermaniac 02:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Kanye is very serious about this as he filed for ballot in Oklahoma. Also he recently held a rally for it. SMB99thx Email! 02:46, 20 July 2020 (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.