I propose merging Doug Burgum 2024 presidential campaign into Doug Burgum and leaving behind a redirect. I think that the content in the campaign can easily be explained within the biographical article for the foreseeable future, and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems in the candidate’s main article. It is not clear whether the campaign will obtain enough note down the road to warrant its own article, but it is not useful to have a stub article at this moment. I am not opposed to a future spinning-off/re-creation of the campaign article if there later becomes sufficiently more to write about the campaign, but for now I believe the stub-article on the campaign serves no use and there is not enough to expand the article beyond what is now contained in it. I am in the process of making similar requests for some other 2024 campaign articles. SecretName101 ( talk) 15:43, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Burgum's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 ( talk) 17:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Support, this would follow similar precedents set by Michael Bennet 2020 presidential campaign, John Hickenlooper 2020 presidential campaign, and Tim Ryan 2020 presidential campaign with the option of de-merging the article should it become necessary later down the road. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I believe it's too early to consider a merge and it's only fair to consider merging once the primary season starts or when the campaign has been suspended. -- 2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 ( talk) 14:32, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Soft support, it's highly unlikely he'll break out of the single-digits and his campaign is getting little mainstream media attention. MAINEiac4434 ( talk) 17:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Wait until the primaries begin or when he drops out. The article looks good enough to merit its own article in the meantime. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 19:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per the above. Major-party presidential campaigns by high-level office-holders are generally independently notable. BD2412 T 22:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  We’ve already determined in past mergers that that does not mean they get their own articles. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Can you please provide an example? QuicoleJR ( talk) 16:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Many Democratic 2020 candidates no longer have dedicated articles to their candidacies, including former secretary of HUD Julian Castro, Senator Michael Bennet, former governor of Massachusetts DeVal Patrick, billionaire activist Tom Steyer (who only briefly had one in 2019), Mayor Wayne Messam, Congressman Tim Ryan, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Congressman Seth Moulton, then-governor (now-senator) John Hickenlooper, state senator Richard Ojeda, Congressman Eric Swalwell, NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio, former congressman Joe Sestak, Governor Steve Bullock. SecretName101 ( talk) 17:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA ( talk) 18:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Wikipedia is a work in progress. According to Politico, Burgum's campaign has hired staff ([citation https://www.politico.com/newsletters/illinois-playbook/2023/06/21/getting-the-rauner-band-back-together-00102836]). That is not currently in the article. I also do not think that low polling excludes candidates. The 2008 campaigns of Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, Mike Gravel, and Bill Richardson all have articles. I think the suggestion to merge is premature and amounts to a de facto overzealous deletion. If he drops out next week, perhaps we should reconsider, but for now a separate article seems perfectly cromulent.-- Mpen320 ( talk) 20:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  By admitting that there'd be no reason to keep the article "if he drops out next week", are you not admitting that the campaign has yet to obtain a longterm need at this stage for an independent article? I'd argue the creation of articles like this poses overzealous creation. SecretName101 ( talk) 21:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  I completely disagree with this assessment. A single event can be independently notable if it receives sufficient coverage in reliable sources. The hypothetical occurrence of a candidate dropping out within weeks of announcing their campaign is possible, but historically so unlikely that it would have to be occasioned by some really unusual (and almost certainly notable) turn of events. For a campaign that lasts more than a few weeks, there is a high probability that there will be ongoing coverage of campaign developments (hirings, firings, endorsements, events), and there will be separate coverage and a post-mortem of the candidate dropping out, if it ends that way. Of course, there is also always a possibility that this candidate (or just about any of them) ends up winning the nomination. BD2412 T 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Notability of an event warrants inclusion on Wikipedia. But it does not inherently create the need for a separate article.

  there is not necessarily the need to at this point have every Republican candidacy have their own article. Many of these campaigns don’t need more than a few paragraphs to describe, hence easily fitting into the main article of their respective candidate SecretName101 ( talk) 04:46, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose at this time, but willing to change if nothing comes of the campaign and that article remains short. Anon a mouse Lee ( talk) 18:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Oppose because it has notoriety due to the recent gift card gimmick, which will likely qualify him for the debate.

Unknown-Tree ( talk) 14:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

A debate is months away. A number of candidates who made the DNC debates in 2020 do not have articles. That he “probably” will make a debate stage in the future is not really an argument for him needing a separate article to describe the campaign he is running SecretName101 ( talk) 14:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC) reply

support because its the same person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.8.151.210 ( talk) 20:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose He is major and notable enough to warrant this, there is also enough major news sources talking about his campaign for this article to exist. Scu ba ( talk) 17:05, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  1) His notability is not necessarily inherited by his campaign

  2) this discussion is not about the notability of the campaign: it is about the need for a separate article covering it SecretName101 ( talk) 17:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  1) Most if not all the articles I've seen of him recently are about his campaign.

  2) because of that the campaign itself has media notability to be a standalone article.

  Scu ba ( talk) 17:53, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Scu ba Notability alone is not the criteria for a standalone article about a sub-topic. The second criterium is whether the content is best separated from the main topic, and what necessity there is for a separate article. Asofar as this moment, there is insufficient information of note about his candidacy to necessitate separating his campaign from his main biography. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: I was unconvinced by arguments above that, in my interpretation, stated that we should keep the article because it might be notable in the future. It is either notable now, and we should keep, or the article should be merged and recreated if/when the article is notable. With that in mind, I looked at the campaign article to determine if it passes WP:GNG, which in my estimation it does: three sources talk specifically about the campaign: [1], [2], [3]. Therefore, I think the article passes GNG and is notable enough to remain as its own article. Z1720 ( talk) 20:43, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply