Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slurpee Summit

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 merge to Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts. MBisanz ^talk 03:52, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slurpee Summit

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There's no real indication of the importance, especially of the persistent importance, of this meeting. I can't help but think the name is meant to be a cute comparison to the beer summit. Maybe this deserves a sentence or two at United States elections, 2010, but I really don't think there's anything substantial to merge. BDD (talk) 23:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially of interest: the article has been PRODded in the past, and is the creation of an indefinitely blocked user. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Errrr, I don't think that it's adequate to make really short articles for every meeting in a legislature. Merge this to the appropriate article, or delete it. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, press coverage indicates notability. Everyking (talk) 02:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 01:32, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not convinced it would pass a stricter interpretation of WP:EVENT but the fact that, as an event, it prompted a subsequent advertising campaign and had an impact on the legislative agenda for that year is enough to me to think it's worth keeping. More coverage here. Not entirely convinced... Stalwart111 04:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts. The summit is only notable in its political/current events/recent-historical perspective, which is the ongoing dispute over the Bush-era tax cuts. The "Extension" section already references the Slurpee Summit, and addresses all of this article's meaningful content. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 09:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect ...Delete - not at all notable. There was no press coverage other than a single internet artcle, and that was clearly "filler material". No redirect is necessary. A mention in the Bush tax cuts#Extension of Bush tax cuts article is all that is needed. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Redirect. Comment from Francophonie&Androphilie was convincing! :) --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm something of a policy wonk, so normally the fact that I've heard of a term wouldn't count for much in terms of notability, but in this case I heard it on The Daily Show. I could envision someone actually searching for this term, if they'd heard it used in the press coverage at the time. Furthermore, if there's another summit like this, picture the morning show headlines "First there was the Beer Summit, then the Slurpee Summit, now, President Obama's convening a '5-Hour Energy Summit' - and then everyone at home says "What was the Slurpee Summit again?" and looks it up. Point is, there's any number of reasons people might look of this article, and I see no harm in leaving a redirect - it's not like "Slurpee Summit" means anything else. — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 00:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further - there's a bit more than just one internet article. It was covered by BBC, NBC, CNN and Time Magazine and all called the meeting the "Slurpee Summit". It wasn't just a one-off passing mention in a single article. Stalwart111 03:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So are you changing your vote to redirect, Stalwart, or just stating a point of fact? — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler)

If anything, I suppose my next step would be to drop the Weak from my "vote". As far as I'm concerned, Redirect is the same as Delete, but with a helpful suggestion for the leftover title. More coverage or "more notability" suggests more justfication for keeping it. No one has cited more coverage than when I first looked (so I remain weakly in favour of keeping it) but I disagreed with the claim that there was only once source. Not many, sure. But more than "one". Stalwart111 05:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.