Colonel William A. Phillips

I propose merging Mike Pence 2024 presidential campaign into Mike Pence 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) 16:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Pence being the former running mate of the candidate who currently leads in polling for the 2024 GOP primary entails that there will be more significant coverage to be included in this article, which would justify this page being separate from the Mike Pence page. BlueShirtz (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a former VP or running mate does not mean your campaign is notable.

  A footnote run by a former VP or running mate would not, and Pence has yet to show he will rise above a footnote.

  for the same rationale, we never created (or at least don’t currently have) an article on former VP Dan Quayle's 2000 Republican run or 1972 Democratic VP nominee Sargent Shriver's 1976 campaign. SecretName101 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article on the former, Dan Quayle 2000 presidential campaign. But I do see your point, but right now it's too early to see if he does or does not rise in the polls, but I'd say we should hold off on any merge talk until at least 2024 when the primaries begin. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I say the opposite. We should hold off on creation until l his campaign activities can provide enough encyclopedic material to justify an article before having one for his campaign, rather than waiting until the primaries.

Didn’t remember there being a Quayle article though.

I think it is just two early at this stage for him and a lot of others to need separate campaign articles. Maybe in two months time it’ll be different. I’m just against creating campaign articles before there is a need and simply waiting to see if one will arise. SecretName101 (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, another deletion request? Pence, the former American vice-president, has and continues to receive sustained media coverage and reputably sourced support. Candidate pages for credible major party candidates are the rule rather than the exception for Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  His being a Vice President is an argument for him warranting his own article. Not every venture of his necessitating a solo article. This very well has good chances of ultimately needing one, but at the moment it is too early for one to be needed SecretName101 (talk) 22:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and keep as a separate article. The campaign, as an entity, is already separately and inherently notable. There should be more coverage of these topics on Wikipedia, not less. BD2412 T 17:50, 9 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) 20:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, I think it's a little too early (he's only been running for a week now) to tell if Pence won't generate significant coverage as a presidential candidate. I'd prefer to keep the article around until voting starts. Informant16 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree, as I would wait until the primaries start or if Pence chooses to suspend his campaign to merge the two articles. If Pence does poorly in the primaries or suspends his campaign, then the article about his 2024 campaign would be short enough to merge with his biographical article in my opinion.

  Pence is a former VP (significant public office) and has received significant media coverage in his 2024 campaign, so his campaign merits its own article for now. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 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) 14:29, 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) 19:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I disagree with the nom; size and WP:UNDUE concerns do support having a spin-off article for the presidential campaign. If he ends up dropping out early, we can reconsider then. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not really. We don't create articles on campaigns just because they exist. We create articles on campaigns because there is a need for a dedicated article in order to cover the subject (not the case at the moment). Campaigns are not automatically entitled to articles. SecretName101 (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the campaign is notable, there are large numbers of reliable sources that talk about it and his candidacy is routinely included in virtually every poll taken regarding the primary since he announced his candidacy.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Being covered reliably is reason to include coverage on wikipedia. It, however, is not always enough to necessitate a separate article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.Oppose. Really? The events of January 6 and the fallout from it and the ongoing effects on the Republican Party makes this campaign highly significant, regardless of how well Pence ends up doing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wasted Time R The January 6 attack has many articles outlining it. How does an event already covered in great depth elsewhere relate to this particular subject needing to be seperate from the main subject's biography? SecretName101 (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. He announced his candidacy less than three weeks ago. If the article doesn’t grow dramatically by the end of summer, I will be extremely surprised, so give it a little time. I’m sure WTR could find a lot of interesting stuff to add right now if he wanted to waste some time at it. I suggest we add a section on “campaign highlights” (as per Tim Scott 2024 presidential campaign) and get to work on it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I'm retired from these kinds of articles. And a counterargument to what I wrote is that few people read campaign articles – consider this comparison for Nikki Haley, for example. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Anythingyouwant we are now a month later (and past the midpoint of the summer). The article has literally grown less than 400 bytes in the time since you said this. Does that persuade you that this article is not poised to grow at the moment, and that it can be merged without prejudice of later re-creation? SecretName101 (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SecretName101: What could have been added to the article is that Pence revealed some awful fundraising numbers last week, see this NYT story or this ABC News piece as examples of coverage, and is in danger of not meeting the number-of-donors criteria for the first Republican debate next month. What also could have been added is Pence's appearance at the The Family Leadership Summit in Iowa, an appearance that didn't go as well as he could have hoped, see this ABC News account or this Financial Times story for instance. Nor does he seem to be getting anywhere in New Hampshire, as this AP filing from yesterday relates. And the headline of this WaPo story from yesterday – "Mike Pence moves from vice president to struggling 2024 longshot bid" – sums up the situation. Pence continues to be on the wrong side of January 6 compared to much of the GOP base, not to mention being on the wrong side of Tucker Carlson, and also looks to be on the wrong side of Ukraine. In many ways, the failure of Pence's campaign to gain much traction is Exhibit A of how much the base of the Republican Party has changed from 2015 to now. So this campaign article could cover all of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasted Time R Some of that is WP:NEWS (such as the leadership summit). The rest can be summarized in two or so sentences that essentially say that, in large part due to Republican sentiment towards Pence regarding January 6 and being out of step with the party on some other matters, Pence's campaign is floundering, being met with varying degrees of indifference and outright hostility from most Republican voters. SecretName101 (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, on the grounds that WP would be better off with concise, well-written top-level articles rather than sprawling subarticles that nobody works on after initial creation, I've switched my !vote to support. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. A merger would prevent details and nuances of the 2024 campaign to be known and seen by the public. To suggest the deletion of this page seems antithetical to the purpose of Wikipedia. Many examples of candidates with far less name recognition, polling, and note-worthiness have pages. If I had my way, there would be very little limitations of the creation of pages. I cannot stand the Wiki-Gatekeepers that use their extensive Wiki knowledge to enforce their political ideology. Any good faith person would want Wikipedia to contain as much information as possible. I cannot fathom entertaining this idea in the slightest. Pointless squabbles with hopes to limit speech is gross. I am nowhere near a fan of Mike Pence or his candidacy but to suggest that a former Vice President's presidential campaign against his former running mate and President is foolish. I feel as if this is a political attempt to undermine Pence and his campaign, which I am not a supporter of. This discussion is utterly ridiculous. KEEP THE PAGE! MrJRSmith (talk) 6:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@MrJRSmith: If you looked at the actual article we are discussing, you'd see that your concerns are misplaced. There is not content that would be lost. There is hardly any content in this article at all, in fact, hence why it is un-necessitated right now. I have no prejudice against later creating a spun-off article, but none is required right now. Please get off your soapbox and stop assigning motives to this nomination that are not present. Thank you.

• Oppose - AFAIK, Pence is the first former US vice president to run for his party's presidential nomination, against the former US president he served under. GoodDay (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A fun fact that does not evidence a current need for an article separate from Pence’s SecretName101 (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I think it is too early to merge at this moment. It is early into his campaign and as of right now it is notable and should be left alone. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think you're premature with this proposal. You're assuming the campaign article will not expand because Pence has no chance to become President, but what if he makes up with Trump? In that case, the merge would be into a second Trump/Pence campaign article. This comment won't make much difference, since the vote was almost unanimously oppose, but I want to add that when editing politics it's never "If A, then B". There are always nonlinear outcomes possible. -- Sleyece (talk) 15:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sleyece If the campaign requires more room for coverage, an article can always be created later. Articles should not be created on speculation of future need. If something needs to be spun-off, it can be spun-off. But if there is no need, there's no need.

  There is no prejudice against re-creation if a spun-off article becomes required later.

  However, we should only spin-off an article on this campaign if it is justified to have a separate article. SecretName101 (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I feel this proposal is a bit premature. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 01:43, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]