Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas Straw Poll

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 no consensus. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Straw Poll

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

non-binding straw poll in one state sponsored by a website and attended by minor 2008 U.S. presidential candidates - no significant coverage, working linked article has the headline "Texas Straw Poll draws small crowd". Hekerui (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep. Most of the news coverage of this event was back in 2007 so I wouldn't be surprised if most of it had expired by this point. The coverage probably exists, but probably only in databases that are behind pay walls. If they don't hold the event in 2011, then bring it back for a second AfD but as for now, if I recall, there at least WAS enough notable coverage for an article when it was written. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - agree with JMF. The media moves on, but if the event was sufficently covered to be notable at the time, that should satisfy WP:N. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 17:23, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this did receive a great deal of coverage in 2007. It is rather ingenuous to label the candidacies of Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter as "minor". Regardless, all candidates were list on the ballot. WP:N is satisfied.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"WP:N is satisfied". This can't be assumed. I entered "'Texas Straw Poll' and townhall" in the Google News Archive and got four instances of insignificant coverage plus one spoof. The local story linked in the article dismisses the event in its headline. Wikipedia is not the news. (And of course the candidates were minor, look at the number of convention delegates they got, or rather, didn't get.) Hekerui (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like 24 g-news-hits to me. Let's try to avoid historical revisionism. Notability does not diminish with time. Convention delegates are a meaningless measure for the labeling of candidacies. Would Rudy Giuliani be considered a "minor" candidate because of low amounts of delegates?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you my search terms, don't spin. If you limit yours to 2007, it's 19. Among the remaining are the spoof, a post on lewrockwell.com, one on opednews.com, and a substantial number of the newspaper sources are mentions of people not participating. Is there any source saying this had any influence on the primary election or nomination? At all? This falls under "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" of WP:NOT. Hekerui (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However Notability is not temporary, remember. If it was notable - at all - then, it's notable now. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm arguing it was not then because there are only some insignificant newspaper mentions and no indication in the reporting that this had any effect at the time (apart from people "hoping" it would). Hekerui (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only spin is coming from you Hekerui. Your search needlessly limits the results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per The Bushranger and William S. Saturn. A notable event in the 2008 presidential election campaign, and - as William points out - notability does not diminish with time.--JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. Per Bushranger.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wasn't notable then, isn't notable now. A short burst of coverage, mostly limited to the state in which it was held, with little (if any) in depth analysis (of the poll itself – always discussed in the context of the primaries). Fails WP:EVENT at every step. May warrant one or two sentences in another article of much wider scope, but even that is doubtful. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge to Townhall.com, the organizer. The individual polls probably aren't of sufficient lasting importance independent from the elections in which they took place. Sandstein 07:07, 7 December 2010 (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.