I propose merging Larry Elder 2024 presidential campaign into Larry Elder 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.

The main info of the campaign article would receive its own section of the Elder article, while the "Political positions" section would be merged with the Elder article's "Political views" section if any content mentioned in the campaign article is omitted from Elder's main article.

SecretName101 (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per rationale of SecretName101, with no prejudice against restoring the article should significant coverage of Elder's campaign increase enough to warrant it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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) 20:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  To be fair, Bennet's and Hickenlooper's campaign articles were merged after they dropped out. I think that's the precedent we should follow. While active and if they are well sourced, the articles merit to be their own until they drop out or the primary season begins. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I do not think we create bare articles on every campaign, particularly in this era where 20-30 hopefuls often run. SecretName101 (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per page substance, being well sourced, and not being a stub as repeated in the nomination (not a stub, so that should either be struck or the nomination withdrawn, thanks). Randy Kryn (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It is literally a paragraph when you exclude the “positions” section covering content not at all unique from the main article.

  that’s a stub, through and through SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The article is well sourced, contains sufficient information (while being sourced properly) for it to be its own article. 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) 14:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  @2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 Why are the only edits for this IP before or since pretty much opposition to all merger proposals to 2024 campaign articles? Not sure if this was single-use IP puppeting or not SecretName101 (talk) 07:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]

  The article is literally a paragraph if you exclude the “positions” section that merely duplicates content that is already discussed/should be discussed on his main article.

  there is literally NOTHING in this article itself that evidences merit for a separate page SecretName101 (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose per the substance of the page and the arguments raised above. Zander123sims4 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the tag, as the proposal has clearly failed at this point. BD2412 T 03:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now that campaign is over, I am again proposing a merge of Larry Elder 2024 presidential campaign into this article. The article has a "Political positions" section that is duplicative of a section featured within this article, and so should be merged. The rest of the article is five short paragraphs (each about two-sentences). Very clearly able to be merged without length issues. The campaign was not all that impactful or notable on the primaries, and therefore lacks much other content that could expand the page. The campaign received very little media coverage (it seemed it would often go weeks at a time without there being any news stories). This article was prematurely created, and was never justified as a separate page. SecretName101 (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. I think that SecretName's reasons are valid. Considering he only ever gained true traction during the Newsom Recall, this belongs here for now. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 19:16, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. By no means was Larry Elder a notable enough candidate to deserve an entire Wikipedia page devoted to his campaign. Expoe34 (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Really the only major candidates who deserve a separate article are those who participated in at least one debate. (And the frontrunner trump) MoMoChohan (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Most of the campaign article is made from parts of this article and barely stands on its own. A merge would make the most sense here. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 06:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. He never gained any traction and never made a debate. A megre would be the most logical. Yedaman54 (talk) 18:24, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]