Talk:Mike Huckabee 2016 presidential campaign

RfC: Are we ready for this article?

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.

---

Howdy.   So I have had nothing but trouble trying to get this article going. I asked to have a discussion on the tp before further action was taken, but that was ignored so I'll do it. Looking at WP:TOOSOON, the article does meet the necessary requirements. It has been widely covered by the media, there is an event being planned and Huckabee is certainly a notable guy. I think this is more a matter of WP:ITJ- the article is a stub (and it's difficult to lengthen it when it's constantly being sent back to a revert) and it certainly needs improvement prior to the announcement. But I don't think we would have to have the discussion if the article were longer. The next relevant policy, WP:UPANDCOMING, also does not count for this article. I'm not saying "this will be a big thing"- it is a big thing. And, yeah, if we delete it now, we WILL absolutely, without a doubt need to bring it back in about 2 weeks, but there is more to it. We will be missing out on a good deal of important coverage. We also need to consider what we've done in the past. With both Clinton and Rubio, we created articles almost as soon as word of announcement came and there were already pretty large articles before the announcement. There were well-viewed and it was important to have that foundation.   Finally, I would like to apologize. Without realizing it, I broke the WP:3RR. I didn't think about it until I looked at the article's history just now. Now, all of everything considered, what should we do? Should we keep the article or redirect? PrairieKid (talk) 16:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)  

I want to add that we should stick the the Status Quo while this discussion takes place. For Clinton, Rubio, Carson and now Huckabee, we have started the articles as soon as we knew there was an announcement planned. If another user, citing policy, makes a counterargument to have the article remain a redirect, I am happy to entertain it. Until then... PrairieKid (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 

Finally, I would like to say his [1] is one giant countdown to the announcement. PrairieKid (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 

• Comment At present, I think it's fairly clear this article violates WP:CRYSTAL. As soon as he announces he's running, it should be fine, but until that is confirmed, there's no reason for an article. Number 57 10:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think WP:CRYSTAL implies that there is no knowledge that it is happening and that it is pure speculation. All media sources are reporting as if he was making the announcement and there is nothing to indicate he isn't. PrairieKid (talk) 02:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

To add to that, WP:CRYSTAL talks specifically about the 2016 election and says that if an event passes WP:CRYSTAL if "the event is notable and almost certain to take place... If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." I think it totally passes that. PrairieKid (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

The United States presidential election, 2016 article passes WP:CRYSTAL. However, that argument doesn't apply to this article, which is about a possible campaign that has not actually been declared yet. Number 57 07:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

But that's not what WP:CRYSTAL requires. The page talks specifically about 2016 campaigns and that it passes crystal if it is notable and almost certain to take place. You'd be hard presses to find someone who does not think he is announcing on May 5. PrairieKid (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL does not talk specifically about 2016 campaigns – it mentions only the election. Why can't you wait two weeks until it's confirmed or not? Number 57 10:25, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think PrairieKid has a made a solid case for letting the article stand on its own. The sources strongly suggest that a Huckabee candidacy is inevitable. On the other hand, I understand that the announcement is still 2 weeks away so it does seem a little soon to start an article about a campaign that hasn't officially started yet. Is it doable to temporarily name the article "Mike Huckabee impending presidential campaign, 2016" then remove "impending" from the title after the announcement is made? That might make for a "happy medium". Just an idea.--Pnu15 (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

He may very well stand and have a campaign that does not reach what you ex-colonials call first base. Still WP:TOOSOON, and will be until there is more to say than can be mentioned in a para in his biog. At the moment Huckabee is just a wannabe.TheLongTone (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON, patience, folks. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• TOOSOON It doesn't exist yet. It will almost certainly exist but it's not unreasonable to suggest waiting until the campaign exists to put it in an encyclopedia. At the moment there's little to say but that he will almost certainly be running. That merits a section on his own page not an article. SPACKlick (talk) 13:28, 6 May 2015 (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.

I don't think this is academic. There is nothing in this article about the campaign, other than it exists. It is still too soon for an article imho. SPACKlick (talk) 12:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/gopdelegates/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:41, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Primary results

According to The Green Papers, Huckabee placed 9th among Republicans in the primary with 51,450 votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.38.14 (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016. 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/20151109093805/http://www.alreporter.com/archives/2015/146-state/8487-merrill-endorses-huckabee.html to http://alreporter.com/archives/2015/146-state/8487-merrill-endorses-huckabee.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160208154148/http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2015/8/gov-huckabee-announces-iowa-s-c-leadership-teams to http://www.mikehuckabee.com/2015/8/gov-huckabee-announces-iowa-s-c-leadership-teams

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 10:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)