Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arizona primary, 2004


 * 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. John254 00:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Arizona primary, 2004

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not only does article not cite sources, but article is useless as results can mostly be found at Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2004

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason as mentioned aboce:
 * Delete All Three. Not encyclopedic enough, and the pictures are irrelevant. Dwilso  14:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all While the articles were not in great condition at the time of nomination they certainly have potential as per all the articles which have been created on the 2008 primaries - see Category:United States Democratic presidential primaries, 2008. I am spending some time on improving the Arizona primary article for which there are plenty of reliable sources to establish notability and have begun adding some to the article. Given time all three articles can be improved as I am doing for the Arizona article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all - per Davewild. These are notable topics and the articles are useful even in their present condition.  Remaining issues should be dealt with through cleanup, not deletion. Johntex\talk 17:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep all three There is somewhat more information than can be incorporated into the general article about the 2004 primaries, and the electoral information is notable. The Arizona primary article is the best of the three, but there's room for all of these to be expanded.  Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep: As a member of WikiProject United States presidential elections, I can see potential, but there is also potential for undue weight if election coverage becomes unbalanced. Fix the DE comma. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have sorted the title of the Delaware article. Davewild (talk) 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep all as there are concerted efforts underway to make viable articles out of individual primaries. 23skidoo (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep All Per Davewild. These articles may be in some sort of trouble in terms of appearance, but they are covered by reliable third party sources, establishing notability and passing WP:N. Twenty Years 07:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.