Talk:Doug Burgum/Archive 1

Archive 1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doug Burgum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160215232447/http://www.ndhorizons.com/featured/index.asp?ID=16 to http://www.ndhorizons.com/featured/index.asp?ID=16
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160223144439/https://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/news/magazine/vol01_issue02/burgum.html to http://www.ndsu.edu/ndsu/news/magazine/vol01_issue02/burgum.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.prairiebizmag.com/event/article/id/13202/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Utterly confusing table

The table at the end of the article, mentioning several politicians including Kamala Harris and Kristi Noem, and mentioning some things about precedence, is utterly confusing.

I stared at it for five minutes and have no idea what it is there for, or what information is actually contained in it.

I am sure that it is possible to design a table that is even more worthless than this one.

(I just can't think of how at the moment.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:200:c082:2ea0:4c85:97e8:e26a:8609 (talk)

I agree that the "order of precedence" table is unnecessary, and have removed it. Walt Yoder (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Reuters, May 28th, says he is running for President

His hat is in the ring Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

my error! It says he is set to run, on May 27th@ Sudzydoogiedawg (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Several news stories say he will announce on June 7. Anon a mouse Lee (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Just updated it to say that, not sure why it wasn't lol Los Pobre (talk) 01:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

"large" software company

In the introduction the adjective "large" is used to describe Great Plains Software, a company that only employed 2,200 and was sold for just over $1 billion. By tech industry standards this is hardly "large". The word comes off as self-serving and is unnecessary. Watari19 (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2023

I don't know the governor from Adam so I really have no opinion of him. Even so, this small article clearly demonstrates the political biases of WP and its editors. Using semi-subliminal phrases like passed a series of anti-trans laws, then linking it (anti-trans) to "transphobia" shows that it was written by one person, from one person's point-of-view. That is not encyclopedia-like. Knowledgebases are discussed and edited before publishing, not after. That is what makes them useful. Could it have been "laws considered trans-phobic by some" - or something to that effect? No. Are we so afraid that someone might actually soften a stance or make a truly neutral statement? Is that a reason to prohibit editing? We don't know that the governor himself is actually anti-trans. Anti-trans, as used in this article is political speech and should be - re-phrased. 71.215.98.163 (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --Pinchme123 (talk) 17:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

  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)

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

  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)

• Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  @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)

• 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.