Deletion of List of Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign endorsements

Comment: This list and its topic are independently notable because its group of notable Bloomberg endorsers is tracked and discussed by independent reliable sources like Fivethirtyeight.  See .  Merge with Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries is not appropriate here because Bloomberg's list is notable and long enough to justify a stand-alone list, unlike John Delaney. Per , endorsements lists are limited by only including entries for independently notable endorsers or those with Wikipedia articles when the entries are supported by independent reliable sources and use the word "endorse" or synonymous language. The criteria ensure that endorsement lists are groups of notable endorsers and not indiscriminate catalogs of non-notable supporters.  The value of notable endorsement lists is discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign non-political endorsements, 2016, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign endorsements, 2016. Deletion of all articles in :Category:United States presidential election endorsements seems unreasonable, especially now that editors have developed strict criteria for endorsement lists in 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:ERFC||WP:ERFC)

Comment: Probably more than most, Bloomberg's endorsement list is independently notable. This was something more reflected in Special:Permalink/941802927|this version of the article, but that was Special:Diff/941803219|moved a while ago to the campaign page where it was just removed as Special:Diff/943380878|"vandalism".I was considering a  close for this discussion, but I chatted a bit  with {{u|Deacon Vorbis}} on iscord about that possibility before doing so (wanting to avoid a ELREV). As it stands with , editors generally want to see coverage roughly proportional to a candidate's support. Is that fair? No, probably not. It doesn't really work well with , but for editors in this area it is one of the few things that manage to keep the peace amongst participants. If you want to see the inevitable fall out where one article is created about a candidate (for notability reasons) and |Other stuff doesn't exist, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media bias against Bernie Sanders|AFD:Media bias against Bernie Sanders.As I said on Discord, the best bet is to withdraw and do a bundled nomination. Alternatively, I would recommend another test case that isn't as covered as much in media as this one; like List of Cory Booker 2020 presidential campaign endorsements because editors are *surprisingly* less vocal about keeping around stuff about inactive candidates who didn't make a large splash (see all the since redirected campaign pages). &#8211
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:D||WP:DELREV||WP:ARBAP2||WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST)

Comment: Valid split, , and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?sort=relevance&search=%22presidential+campaign+endorsements%22&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&advancedSearch-current=%7B%7D&ns4=1&ns5=1&searchToken=cdeuwl6ulta8ylqf7l8q1217uhttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=%22presidential+campaign+endorsements%22&advancedSearch-current={}&ns0=1 mean that there's more than enough precedent that individual AFDs are inappropriate, but also more than enough precedent to suggest that an RFC on removal of endorsements in toto is almost certain to fail (the case for retention is stronger than 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:LISTN||WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)