Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Democratic Party (United States) superdelegates, 2008[edit]

This page was not exactly encyclopedic in the first place, but was useful. Now that the election is over it should be removed. No need for this level of detail in an encyclopedia. Even a full length book on just the 2008 campaign would probably not include a list of all the superdelegates. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Seems perfectly encyclopedic to me. Given how much of an issue the super-delegates became in the 2008 election, it seems reasonable that keeping an article listing who they were and where they stood is of a matter of encyclopedic interest. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that they were important. However we already have Superdelegate explaining about them. This article is really a list of raw data, not an article. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does more than just explain about them though, in that it also tells who the actual people were, and how they voted. Information like that is important, and should be covered. Covering it in theSuperdelegate article isn't really feasible, since it would bloat that article beyond reason. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important once, important permanently. We are not a newspaper, carrying information because of current interest. Part of political history at a national level.DGG (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a cross between encyclopedic and almanacical. Wikipedia isn't an encyclopedia, it is a reference work. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not temporary Scapler (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! Very historical, very notable. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is a historical record now. Notable even though no longer topically relevant. Spinach Monster (talk) 07:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all six preceding comments. JamesMLane t c 08:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's a set of raw statistics and therefore doesn't belong here, transwiki to WikiSource is a better solution than deletion. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were just a set of statistics, which is isn't. Feel free to copy to Wikisource, but leave the article alone otherwise. I would ask an administrator to close this discussion, consensus seems to have been reached above. Spinach Monster (talk) 14:23, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree. Ten responses to the nom, all favoring "keep" -- time for WP:SNOW. JamesMLane t c 05:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - all of the above, plus: this is extremely well-sourced and useful for students doing research in the future. That's who needs it. Useful=encyclopedic. Bearian (talk) 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per all the above comments. This was a critical issue in the election, and this is now notable for reference purposes. Rlendog (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and others. --Crunch (talk)
Comment I'm surprised to see so much support for the article. I hope there is no misunderstanding. I am not against the Superdelegates in any way and my nomination was not intended to be hostile to them. I just think the level of detail is too great when the important facts are covered in other articles on the events. If the article is kept it will do no harm. But at least change the first sentence so that it does not say they "will vote." Northwestgnome (talk) 11:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There is at least one other place in the article that needs to be changed to past tense. :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2009 (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.