Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign

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. Content fork with same information in Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Malinaccier (talk) 02:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama caucus and primary campaign[edit]

This is a content fork of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. There is discussion on that article's talk page of creating a separate article for the primary campaign, but if that happens Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 will simply be renamed to indicate that covers the primary campaign. A new article on the same subject is pointless. Loonymonkey (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At the moment I see a potential problem with the current situation of the article as it stands. Without violating WP:crystal ball we will have difficulty determining the exact weight of the primary campaign versus the 'presidential' campaign. The primary and caucus campaign was clearly notable for a number of reasons separate from the overall presidential campaign, and forcing it to stay as its own section would possibly violate WP:undue. My instinct here is that because the primary campaign was notable in and of itself, and distinct in numerous ways from the overall presidential race for 2008, I think it is too early at the moment to force deletion. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood my reason for nominating this. It's not for notability reasons, but the fact that an article already exists on this subject. Discussion is taking place on that article's talk page as to whether we should create a separate article for the general election, but currently this article is just a fork of that one. --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Loonymonkey's response. A new article for the general election campaign with a move seems to make more sense. HatlessAtless (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary content fork and reduplication of information. Shereth 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is already in his Article

User:Mike T Boss —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 00:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not for nothing but there is no AfD notice on the article concerned. I suggest this AfD be closed and listed correctly. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag has been added to the article. No need to close/restart this discussion, but the closing administrator may want to take in to consideration the fact that the article went without a tag for a day, and extend the discussion by an additional day if the consensus looks less than clear. Shereth 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, it looks like a bug with Twinkle (usually it adds the tag automatically). The notification went through but not the tag for some reason. I agree with Shereth's comment above. There isn't any reason to restart discussion, but enough time should be given for all concerned to weigh in (seeing as how only two edits have been made to the page, I don't think it's really a concern). --Loonymonkey (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems like a notable topic now and will remain so in the future. I'm sorry that I don't follow all the issues brought up by the other editors about this. Northwestgnome (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It is an unneeded content fork for an existing article on the same subject, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Nsk92 (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think the topic is big enough for its own article? That way all the details of this part of the campaign don't have to be covered in the main article. I don't see how that would cause any problems. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Looneymonkey's comments. There already is an article on this topic, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. More than 90% of what that article covers is the campaign for the nomination and the newly created article that is the subject of this AfD essentially duplicates that content. It may be that there should be a separate article about Obama's general election campaign. But the solution then is to create a new article Barack Obama presidential campaign, general election, 2008 (or something like that) and to change the title of the existing article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to something like Barack Obama presidential campaign, Democratic nomination, 2008. However, it is definitely not appropriate to create from scratch a content duplicate of a previously existing and reasonably well developed article Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Nsk92 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (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.