Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2012

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 keep. Snow keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2012

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

Although the Republican Caucuses were notable, the Democratic Caucuses were not. Hence, an article is not justified. Victor Victoria (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess I'm not following the deletion argument here. Even assuming that the caucus served no function whatsoever (which the article seems to contradict), "notable" doesn't mean the same thing as "consequential"; Obama may have been a shoe-in but there was still a caucus and there is still coverage and it seems to me that omitting articles like this one just leaves us with gappy, incomplete coverage of the 2012 election. Would we decide not to cover any primary contest that has an overwhelming result? --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012. We can cover the caucus without giving it an article of its own. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The caucus happened. People showed up. Just like we have articles for the Democratic primary process (and the Republican primary process) we have one for Iowa, since there is one for the Republicans. It provides equal weight, and there was notable coverage in mass media with the Obama web conference. If you want to create one for the 2004 Iowa Republican caucus feel free to do so. Calwatch (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everything is sourced here and there's no harm in keeping this; people are going to be curious about what the other side polled despite Obama going unopposed, and the elections and caucuses do have a purpose in keeping their side occupied, even if there's nothing much to do now. Nate • (chatter) 06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep not as newsworthy or exciting as the GOP's but perfectly notable. As for merging this is not too short an article, but merged with even a dozen others never mind 49 it would be too long.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep has references. --SupernovaExplosion (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Caucuces for US president are always a notable fact.User:Lucifero4
Keep Meets WP:GNG and is reliably sourced. Merits stand-alone article.--JayJasper (talk) 05:57, 1 February 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.