Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election


 * 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 k e ep. east. 718 at 09:53, 11/4/2007

Congressional endorsements for the 2008 presidential election

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Of the dozens absurd articles about the 2008 US (and note the title doesn't specify US) presidential election, this is among the worst offenders. I know "who cares?" isn't normally a compelling argument, but it should be here. The 540 Americans listed here each have one vote like the rest of the American people (actually five of them can't even vote), and for the most part, their opinions on the race aren't all that important. My other complaint is that this smacks of recentism (when can we expect a Congressional endorsements for the 1816 presidential election page?) and America-centrism (when will we see the Reichstag members' endorsements for the 1925 German presidential election?). All in all, an unnecessary and trivial list that in isolation poses an annoyance but if indicative of a wider trend (ie, those two orange links being turned blue) threatens to spawn a rather unpleasant slippery slope. Biruitorul 06:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm actually somewhat dissappointed that this article is unworthy of inclusion.  It's pretty clear to me that the creator of the table worked his/her ass off to put it together.  That said, I have the same who cares? attitude as the nominator.  We don't need an article on every little thing related to the 2008 elections.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  08:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Pretty good table format & well referred. But undeserving article. Delete. --Avinesh Jose 10:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. There are many things that are notable about presidential campaigns, but endorsements aren't one of them -- certainly not to the level of a separate article. List key endorsements that pass WP:N in the candidate's campaign article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is informative as to a presidential candidate's support from the current Congress. That in itself is enough useful information to keep it. Also, this may be useful to anyone who will one day write a history of the 2008 presidential primaries. This is no different than lists of newspaper endorsements of presidential candidates. Nightkey 15:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Throughout political history, even in 1812, the question of who supported whom has been notable. Depending on who wins the election, you'll be seeing a lot of these people in the news again, and some of them will end up in the next administration.  If you're not that interested in politics, you'll probably not need to refer to this article.  For some of us, it's even more important than the names of Jerry's various girlfriends on Seinfeld.  Mandsford 16:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Who supported whom is notable, as long as the support of those people is notable. But the list poses two problems. On the one hand, the endorsements of all 540 are not notable: it does matter whom Harry Reid or John Boehner supports, but it doesn't really matter whom Ron Wyden or Steve Holden supports. On the other hand, plenty of notable sectors are missed by this list. Why not Gubernatorial endorsements for the 2008 presidential election, Fortune 500 executives' endorsements for the 2008 presidential election or Big-city mayors' endorsements for the 2008 presidential election? So you see, on the one hand, the list itself isn't that useful; on the other hand, many other potential such lists of important people's endorsements could be made, and at that point, the matter threatens to spin out of control. Biruitorul 22:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy 18:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read this essay. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete While the opinions of prominent congress members may be notable, the majority of them aren't. I can't see someone coming to this page and actually gaining any insight based on the fact that a Congressperson they've never heard of from the other side of the US supports one candidate or another. Move the information to the individual pages for each Congressperson, and put the aggregate data on the Candidate's page Mad031683 18:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, well-put together table with many references concerning a notable event that while present will assuredly be historic and concerns something that is likely to have pretty important interest in from our readership. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 18:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The US politics is not quite as egalitarian as WP,, and the people listed here have considerable influence by virtue of their positions and the structure of the US party system. some may have more influence than others, but they are have a great deal more than most other people--it goes two ways--their endorsements especially at the primary stage are a matter of bargaining in both directions, and each individual one is newsworthy. They will--or at least should-- be included in the articles about hem. a collected table is important and useful, and this is one of the criteria for list-type articles. An interesting version of otherjunkexists   was made above: delete this article because there could be other similar useful articles also, and we dont have them yet. DGG (talk) 23:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As one of the principal editors of this page, I can't help but take offense to the user who first considered this for deletion. No, "Who cares" is not a valid rationale. Know why? Because some people do care. There are people who want to know, and this page is there to inform them. Nevermore27 02:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That some people may want to be informed on this subject doesn't bind us to have an article on it. Biruitorul 03:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We are not bound to have an article for everything, but that doesn't mean that the ones that already exist should be deleted just because they only appeal to small number of people. Nevermore27 10:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. I'm really surprised that anyone would nominate this for deletion even after reading the explanations above.  This is verifiable material.  It is covered by all the major news outlets and by campaign websites.  It is historically relevant (for example, it is often referenced how many endorsements Howard Dean managed in 2004).  The only argument I can find above is that some of you find it uninteresting or unimportant.  This is not the same thing as not notable.  Encyclopedias, particularly one as comprehensive as we're trying to make this one, will be full of articles about subjects or that detail subject matter to a degree that an average reader .  If you're not interested in this much detail, skip it just like you'd skip an article about one of the 300,000 species of beetle.  But again, these data are touted by the campaigns, reported by mass media, and will be discussed by political historians and pundits in the future, and therefore easily pass notability.  Incidentally, these people do not have merely a single vote like all Americans, but are superdelegates. --Aranae 03:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Its not that I think its not useful information, I just think it has very limited usefulness all on one page. If you want to know how many endorsements Howard Dean got, go to the Howard Dean page. Also, what happens after the primary, when most of these will change to the respective nominees? This is a huge, unwieldy list with less than half of the slots filled in that I don't think adds anything that wouldn't be better suited to other articles. Mad031683 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would definitely support making some changes to the setup of the page. For example, gubernatorial endorsements could be added.  I also wouldn't be particularly opposed to removing the congress(wo)men who have not endorsed until they do, but actually prefer the blank spaces.  I do think it is valuable to compare all of these endorsements at one place and would not support listing this information only on candidates' pages.  --Aranae 03:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Not stuff for a separate article, easily movable to other articles, likely to become a footnote, and definitely a slippery slope. Dahn 12:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Everyking 09:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Congressional endorsements are significant in themselves; see, , , , . However, if it is ultimately decided that this article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, I would recommend as a second choice that it be transwikied to Campaigns Wikia, which should be allowed as it is GFDL-licensed. --Metropolitan90 05:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. — Nightstallion 15:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable. Behun 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment if kept it must be moved so it gets US in the title. Apart from that I abstain from 'voting'. Greswik 18:49, 3 November 2007 (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.