Talk:Tim Scott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger proposal[edit]

The proposal failed. casualdejekyll 20:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Tim Scott 2024 presidential campaign into Tim Scott 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) 15:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, agreeing with Woko, unless Scott's campaign happens to take off significantly and he begins receives significant coverage similar to candidates like Trump and DeSantis, which based on current polling, seems unlikely, then we can devote a page to him.
Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the campaign is an independently notable and well-sourced legal entity, and follows the precedents of numerous articles on similarly notable campaigns. It is also unfortunate to have multiple discussions on similar subjects likely to result in inconsistent outcomes. BD2412 T 20:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article is well sourced and was already significant prior to his announcement due to speculation and the historical significance of it. If anything, should this campaign not gain traction then a merge proposal would be appropriate. I believe most of the 2020 Dem campaign articles weren't merge until their campaigns were suspended/post-primaries. --2601:249:8E00:420:B93B:A3A7:4E32:53B2 (talk) 14:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've always thought until a candidate is successful enough, it can be merged into the subject's article as a subsection. I'm not saying Tim won't make it, but the stub articles for just about every candidate are unnecessary until time plays out and we fully know where they wind up in the race. conman33 (. . .talk) 00:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[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) 19:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral there is a certain sense that Scott's campaign is similar in stature to Nikki Haley and Mike Pence's, and as I voted not to merge those two I ought to vote not to merge this one as well. But, neither Tim Scott nor the presidential-campaign is so long here that I see a compelling reason to oppose such a merger based on article length or focus; just "consistency" and an expectation there will probably be substantial coverage (which will justify a stand-alone article) over the next six months. Walt Yoder (talk) 00:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose: the arguments given by the proposer have merit. however, I also find several arguments of those opposed to be persuasive. Since technically there is presumably enough media coverage for the topic to be notable as an independent article, I lean on keeping the article and wait to see how it evolves with the campaign. Moving to merge just to later split it again seems unnecessary extra work. Might as well keep them separate and decide a potential merger if the campaign ended prematurely and was uneventful. Al83tito (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments raised above. Arkansawyer25KADIMA (talk) 19:17, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it’s highly notable and we’d just have to re-create in a few days anyway when no one can deny it has enough content for a separate article. Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would we so suddenly have to re-recreate and article that has had no major new developments since its early creation? He also is a relative afterthought in this primary, so I'd strongly contest the use of the word "highly" SecretName101 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    He launched his presidential campaign on May 22, 2023 which is less than a month ago. As months go by, more things will inevitably happen, leading to a longer article about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    So wouldn’t it then make sense for an article to exist when and if there is enough for an article. And when there isn’t, for one not to exist? SecretName101 (talk) 00:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It’s largely a matter of motivation. I motivated myself to add quite a bit to that article today, for example.[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would add that it is seriously shortsighted to view the notability of a campaign solely in terms of whether the candidate is likely to win or lose the nomination. Presidential campaigns can launch enduring national profiles for not only the candidates, but their high-level campaign staff and surrogates. A less prominent candidate can elevate the prominence of a specific campaign issue, formulate a policy that is later adopted by the eventual nominee, or deliver blows to a frontrunner that change outcomes at the top. BD2412 T 02:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not about notability so much as amount of notable content to write about; whether it requires a separate article at this point in time to outline it.@BD2412 SecretName101 (talk) 02:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We have pages like this for lots of other presidential candidates, and his campaign has gotten broad coverage. Binarybits (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    coverage is an argument for inclusion in the project, but not necessarily for the need to have a separate article. Other argument is WP:OTHERSTUFF SecretName101 (talk) 04:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Scott's presidential campaign has recieved enough media coverage to warrant a separate article. There's no reason to merge it when a merge would just make the main article excessively long. Tintinthereporter226 10:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintinthereporter226 Not to question your assessment too much, but I'm just confused where you are getting the idea that a merger of such a minute-sized article would add excessive length?
Also, as I have said, media coverage doesn't necessarily mean something needs an independent article. It's about whether that coverage creates a long-enough amount of notable content that it warrants a spin-off from the main subject. SecretName101 (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, the primaries themselves haven't even happened yet. My primary justification that it would increase the size of the article unnecessarily is that Scott's campaign is likely to be significantly expanded as the primaries take place. If this has not happened, I'm open to another merge review when the time comes. Tintinthereporter226 18:08, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintinthereporter226 There's no prejudice against re-creation in my proposal.
The primaries are also months away, meaning that such hypothetical growth of the article (if it occurs) won't likely even begin for months. SecretName101 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the tag, as the proposal has clearly failed at this point. BD2412 T 03:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting that for at least several days the tag was removed from the main article. This is all improper. Editors are not to remove these tags until a merger discsussion has received a formal close. SecretName101 (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of these tags have been removed by various editors, who can plainly see that the proposal has failed. At this point, I would suggest that the proposal be voluntarily withdrawn. BD2412 T 04:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mother’s Occupation?[edit]

The entry says his mother was a Nursing Assistant, but the cited source (Politico article) indicates she was a Nurse. I haven’t been able to find another source specifying her line of work, so am hesitant to change this small item. Huskerdru (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tim_Scott&oldid=1217947222"