Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2020 United States presidential electors

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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2020 United States presidential electors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Although the United States Electoral College is a notable topic, the actual electors themselves are generally non-notable (as a position - they may be notable in other roles, e.g. mayor of a city, state representative, etc). I do not believe there are RS that discuss the "full list" of electors in a given presidential election year. Each state publishes their list of electors as part of an official record, or in the official documents for certifying the election, but this topic is not widely discussed in independent sources.

Note, if deleted, other articles in the Category:Lists of United States presidential electors should also be reviewed and deleted. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:07, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the result is keep, the article needs major work, as it is in very poor shape at the moment. Curbon7 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I can handle the clean-up, since it's looking like it's snowing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Anyone can be selected, it doesn't matter who. And saying who they voted for is misleading, the voters decided, they just did what they were suppose to. Dream Focus 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see a clear policy based-reason for delete in the nomination. Are there problems with WP:SALAT, WP:LSC, WP:NLIST? Worth emphasising NLIST here: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" The idea that the 2020 Electoral College membership in toto is not notable seems rather at odds with the ... um .... staying NPOV here .... incidents around the tallying of the 2020 EC vote. FWIW, sources speaking of the 2020 electors in toto: All 538 electors have voted, formalizing Biden's 306-232 win - CBS News, Al Jazeera speaks to Biden and Trump electors before Monday’s Electoral College vote, After voting for Donald Trump, Texas electors ask swing states to reject results that assured victory for Joe Biden - Texas Tribune Electoral college confirms Joe Biden's victory in presidential election - The Guardian US Presidential Electors Confirm Joe Biden’s Victory - VOA News. Not declaring a !vote for this one at the moment, as I would appreciate the nominator (or others) responding to these points and hearing alternative views. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The reasons presented for deletion are that the individual people aren't notable (but this is an exhaustive list, not a list of examples, so individual notability is irrelevant), that sources do not discuss the full list (but we only need sources which discuss them as a group, and there's no shortage of those), "anyone can be selected" (so what?). On the other hand, the people who actually cast the ballots in the electoral college -- some of them bound to the voters, some not -- come up every election, especially when the election's going to be close or when people start talking about electoral college funny business. Every election there are sources which talk about who the electors are, who the individual electors are in your particular state, etc., alongside the "what if" speculation. I'd argue that while the subject is notable for a list on its own, it's also a completely valid spin-off of 2020 United States presidential election. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Delete all isn't a valid outcome here. If you want this to apply to other pages, you have to formally nominate them, not just say it'll apply. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid subtopic of both the national article and respective state articles. There is substantial coverage of these electors as a whole and by each state's slate. Reywas92^Talk 13:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per Reywas92 and Rhododendrites. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Goldsztaijn (I think the sourcing tips the balance) and Rhododendrites. As for binding votes, that's not the case in some states (see 2016 for an example). Iseult ^Δx parlez moi 19:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (notified). As Rhododendrites states, this is an exhaustive list of Americans who play a formal role in electing the president. The entire content of the list is verifiable and portions of the list receive significant (if routine) coverage. --Enos733 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep appears it's not just me. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a topic that is noteworthy both historically and in the present day. Also there are plenty of sources for most of the people who are public figures. As long as it's clear that the electors are voting on behalf of their state then I think its fine. Unless like in past years you have someone votes for someone else then they should be highlighted. Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 04:57, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rhododendrites and Reywas92. Passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST. Sal2100 (talk) 17:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The sourcing indicates that the list passes WP:NLIST, which only requires the group to be significantly covered. The nom objects to non-notable individuals being listed, but the way to resolve that is to suggest selection criteria and try to gain consensus through ordinary editing and discussion in line with WP:DEL-CONTENT. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:43, 27 June 2022 (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.