I've seen multiple comments that are defending this article because of what they perceive as racial discrimination. I would just like to say that the discussion here is in no way related to race. I am well aware that especially now, tensions are high and it is easy to see something for what it's not. But please look beyond that, at the bigger picture. If you're gonna comment about the article, don't base your rationale on race or the current movement going on in our country, because those are entirely unrelated to the issue at hand. Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
...given the intentional media blackout on this campaign, à la Ross Perot's presidential campaigns. I keep seeing headlines like "Kim Kardashian's rapper husband announces presidential campaign", they won't even say his name. I even seen this article that outright said we mustn't talk about Kanye's campaign because it's a dangerous distraction. We are truly failing academically if we are dependent on the news to verify facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LlamaWorkshop (talk • contribs) 05:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
A lot of editors are raising that even if it is a publicity stunt, the stunt regardless meets WP:GNG. I think this begs the question, though: What are we even writing about if it’s a stunt? Currently, there seems to be a lot of WP:SYNTH about his supposed policy positions, with unreliable sources cited. If the article were reduced to verifiable content from reliable sources only, we’d have a stub that could easily fit into Kanye West. Many current sources cited are essentially tabloids. Do we really think Mashable and The Hollywood Reporter are reliable sources for a political campaign article? They’re sources of Hollywood gossip. — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 04:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
@KidAd: Many commenters seem to be under the impression that future notability means notability now. These comments are based on a misunderstanding of WP:GNG, and are not reasonable explanations for "keep" !votes. Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. It’s likely WP:TOOSOON for a standalone article. Currently, the AfD page is being flooded with "keep" !votes, many with little to no explanation. Should we strike the ones that argue on the basis of predicted future notability? — Tartan357 (Talk) 03:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
I fully agree with you, but I am somewhat reluctant about interfering with votes after my experience with the 3rd and 4th Kyle Kulinky AfDs. Those discussions were flooded with SPA votes and vandalism after the article’s subject directed his fans to the AfD via Twitter. The deletion discussions were later taken to AN/I. If anything, I think it would be smart to create a median between legitimate votes and those cast without reason. It may also be helpful to draft a notice to the closing admin before the AfD is closed. I would be happy to help draft the message if you agree it is the best course of action. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 03:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
"I appreciate this article. Please don't delete it."It’s hard to imagine a clearer case of WP:ILIKEIT. — Tartan357 (Talk) 05:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
In my head I assumed we'd have a full legal-style decision filled with citations, policy, and summaries, so fair play for the short, sharp, no-nonsense "The result was no consensus." doktorb wordsdeeds 12:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)