This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Elections and Referendums C‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. U.S. Congress C‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", or "Events". Maine C‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MaineWikipedia:WikiProject MaineTemplate:WikiProject MaineMaine articles C This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Kennebec Journal has reported that Erick Bennett is facing Sen. Collins as a write-in candidate, and does not mention an independent candidacy(likely due to his independent candidacy being illegal). I have changed this article to indicate that, but I'm not sure if that means the reference to his independent run should be removed or how it should be changed. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should election articles have links to the campaign websites of the candidates involved? 331dot (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

As I pointed out, the individuals' campaign websites are redundant (in that this article links to each notable individual's article which contain the external links) and off topic (in that this article is about the election, not the individuals' campaigns), so don't belong per WP:EL (ELNO #1,5,13, possibly 19) and WP:NOT (WP:SOAP & WP:NOTLINK).

Note that even on their own articles, the campaign website links are highly questionable for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want those out, I hope you are prepared to ask for them to be removed across Wikipedia through a RfC, as the vast majority of pages have them, and the ones that don't AFAIK you removed them from. Even pages for other countries' elections (see the last UK election)] have such links. Yes, other stuff exists, but I think all articles about a like subject (such as US Senate elections) should be similar in format and have similar information.

I'm frankly amazed that we have someone claiming campaign websites are irrelevant to an election, if they were, campaigns would not invest in them; Campaign websites are not irrelevant to the election, they are the basis of the election. Without campaigns you have no election. Wikipedia is here to inform readers, and readers who come here to learn about the election can find a link to the campaign websites to learn more and get firsthand information. What is the benefit of not having this information? 331dot (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how such links are soapboxing, and the first line of WP:NOTLINK states "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article". It is certainly relevant and informative. 331dot (talk) 17:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support everything that 331dot has said above. Campaign websites are very important for an article about an election. In no way are these external links off-topic.--TM 19:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So we're ignoring WP:EL completely? Why?

The campaign sites are only important in that they promote their campaigns, hence WP:SOAP.

The links are being added to provide access to the sites regardless of content. That's providing a directory service rather than encyclopedic content, hence WP:NOTLINK.

(And lets avoid misrepresentations like, "claiming campaign websites are irrelevant to an election". No one is making such a claim.) --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links are not promotional as they do not advocate for or against a candidate(i.e. "vote for Susan Collins, here's her site"). The links are for accessing the sites because of their content, not regardless of it. It is beneficial to readers interested in this election to have easy links to find out more information about the candidates. You can cite an alphabet soup of policies but you still haven't said what the benefit of not having this information is. 331dot (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still maintain that if you want to seek such a large change to Wikipedia, that you submit a RfC as this issue affects more than just this page. 331dot (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying the content of the sites promotes the campaign by definition.

"links are for accessing the sites" Exactly. We're providing a directory service. We shouldn't be.

"...because of their content" I see no evidence of that. We're simply adding links to campaign sites.

I think we should simply follow WP:EL. --Ronz (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The links, however, are not promotional in and of themselves and are not given in a promotional context.

The links are not provided as a "directory"(a large number of links about a subject) but to enhance the informative value of the article. WP:EL also says "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic", which these clearly are. It also states that the follwing is acceptable: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons"; the links on their campaigns are relevant to better understanding the election. Removing them would do a great disservice to readers. You also still have not stated what the benefit is to not having the information. 331dot (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The benefit is we follow our relevant policies and guidelines in providing information of an encyclopedic nature rather than promoting the campaigns themselves by providing the links in multiple articles.

The links are not "further research that is accurate and on topic". As I already said the very opposite about their relevance to the topic of this article and why, you'll have to explain further.

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" The material is in no way neutral. Claiming it is accurate is more than a stretch. These are campaign websites we're talking about, not research, not statistics, not independently written information of any kind whatsoever. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not promotional unless done in a manner in which to advocate a position, which is not being done. No one is promoting particular candidates or voting in a certain manner. It does not promote a campaign to provide a link to interested readers; we want people to read the articles and use them as a resource. By your reasoning, there should be no external links of any kind in any article, as all links are "promotional" in your eyes. Campaign websites are an essential and integral part of elections and help readers; not including them is a great disservice. Obviously this is a fundamental disagreement between us and neither one of us will convince the other, so I await comment by others. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming via the RfC alerts for Elections & referedums, I would say that the external links should be included. They are entirely relevant to the election. Re Ronz's comment re points 1, 5, 13 and 19 of WP:ELNO being relevant, I wholly disagree. One-by-one; #1 – these sites will provide more information that the article will, as not all campaign pledges by candidates can reasonably be included in the article; #5 – the sites are not commercial (i.e. exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising); #13 – the sites are directly related to the article (they're campaign websites for the election!) and #19 – the websites aren't mentioned in the article. I also find little to back up the SOAP and NOTLINK arguments; this is not promotional, as it's directly related to the subject (would we not include a link to McDonald's official website on their article?). This is also very unlikely to turn into some kind of directory, unless there are tens of candidates. Number 57 14:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]