Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Tuesday III, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. On the "delete" side, editors point out that this (not very original) term has been used by exactly one news source, and that the contents are redundant to those of various articles in {{2008Demprimaries}}, among others. On the "keep" side, no convincing policy-based argument is made why we need an article on this election day despite these shortcomings. If it later turns out to be historically significant (and covered by multiple reliable sources as such), and its coverage in an existing article would be unwieldy (per WP:SS), we can recreate it. Sandstein (talk) 07:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Super Tuesday III, 2008

Super Tuesday III, 2008 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

The term may have precedent in news coverage, but article can do little more than index and recap a few other articles with little difference in scope. Potatoswatter (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete or merge per nom. As I came across this earlier I was thinking exactly the same, but decided to wait. It's only two states and is nothing major. The election statistics are already on the IN and NC articles. Reywas92Talk 22:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is the most number of delegates available through the rest of the primary season, and is notably the biggest game-changer since Super Tuesday II. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see a single fact on there that is notably independent of Indiana Democratic primary, 2008 and North Carolina Democratic primary, 2008. I see this as just another term used by the media. Reywas92Talk 00:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does it have to be? If someone goes to find out what "Super Tuesday III" was, shouldn't they be able to find that information via Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.0.10 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
That argument could be used for everything in the universe; maybe someone wants to know about my dog. Should he be able to find that out here? It could be listed in Super Tuesday and link to the primary links above, as there's little unique info. Reywas92Talk 01:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Remember that as per WP:NOTPAPER, we are not limited as to the number of topics we can cover. Likewise the reductio ad absurdum example of a Wikipedia article on your dog does not really apply here because if your dog were notable -as is this topic- and if its article were well sourced to multiple reliable, third-party, published sources -as is this article- I have no doubt that much like Judy or Indiana, your dog would warrant a Wikipedia article of its own. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - As CoolKid1993 noted, this is the final "Super Tuesday" event in the 2008 election cycle. It is especially significant since this is the first time there has been a "Super Tuesday III" in a primary season for quite a few years; the Super Tuesday article indicates that the last was in 1984. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The term "Super Tuesday III" is not used at all in American news coverage as far as I can tell in reference to the May 6, 2008 primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. A Google News search garners one hit in the last month, from a British source [1], and a Google News Archive search garners six hits, five of which are from past election years and one of which is from this year, but in German, and seems to be about the 1984 election. [2] The primaries themselves are notable but should be covered in articles such as Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 instead. Also, the article's claim that May 6 was the day with the third-highest number of states or territories holding primaries and caucuses during the 2008 election season is incorrect. There were more primaries on Feb. 5 (23), Feb. 9 (4), Feb. 12 (3), and Mar. 4 (4). (May 6 was the day with the third-highest fourth-highest number of delegates selected, as far as I can tell.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing in this article that can't be covered by the individual articles of the NC and IN primaries. - Prezboy1 talk 03:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One media source uses a term and we have an article on it? Delete. - Chardish (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: fails WP:NEO, undersourced and ephemeral neologism. Only 101 Google hits, only two G-News hits.  RGTraynor  13:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    The article's name is not from the news media, but comes from past Wikipedia precedent. As I noted on talk page, the news media has been calling it just "Super Tuesday" (or "the latest Super Tuesday," "the final Super Tuesday"). The election itself is notable as it is the first time in 24 years that this particular Super Tuesday race has been contested by multiple candidates. Please do not judge the notability of the article on my ability to pick a name for it that makes it easy to find supporting G-hits, or for that matter, to differentiate it from the other 14 Super Tuesday elections that have taken place in the past 24 years. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply: Some elections are hotly contested contests. Some are not. This particular one (Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008) has had a longer run than most, but there's nothing so particularly notable about yesterday that it requires an independent article, any more than the two remaining Tuesdays with multiple primaries will.  RGTraynor  14:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Yep. If anything notable had happened, the text would have been updated beyond just the numbers, and more numbers would be reported so as to provide a coherent view of the results. It still reads in the future tense and doesn't even note that Obama gained overall by a significant margin. Consider if someone added text here but not in the main results or state results articles: readers would miss it or be confused. This article distracts too much from the main series. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not sure about the name, but the topic needs an article. Everyking (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now, notable event; the name may have to be changed. —Nightstallion 22:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note a name change to an already existing article such as just Super Tuesday amounts to a merge. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Super Tuesday "I" had a over 20 contests on one day, while this Super Tuesday had only two in each party's primary? How is that "super?" I don't think we need to chronicle ever huge primary day because one just might be the end of Clinton's campaign. The media hypes it up as "this is make or break for Obama," and "Clinton will run out of options if she loses the state of _______" If any thing, just MERGE into "Super Tuesday 2008." conman33 (. . .talk) 20:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep for now. It's still too early to know whether this article is warranted, because such a decision can only be determined in a historical context. At present, this date appears to have been a game changer so a detailed analysis of the context of these two primaries may be valuable since this looks to be the point where the perception changed from close race to having a likely winner. The circumstances surrounding that shift are encyclopedic in a way that extends in a broader context compared to the individual primaries, but in more detail than can be covered in the nomination page. I too dislike the current name. Why wasn't the Potomac Primary a Super Tuesday also? --Aranae (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:NEO. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The term was also used for Ohio and Texas Francium12 (talk) 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.