Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Wallace presidential campaign 1968


 * 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 per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:N, WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

George Wallace presidential campaign 1968

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Overly detailed info on presidential campaign, violates WP:IINFO, contains nothing important not already stated elsewhere. Contested prod. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, unsourced/WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 15:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as it is unsourced.Osli73 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but source. This was one of the more important independent Presidential campaigns of the 20th century. --Dhartung | Talk 17:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but stub and move the bulk of the article to talk space. The text is unreferenced, unwikified, and quite essayish, but the subject itself is fairly obviously worthy of a stand-alone article.  Make certain that the stub links to United States presidential election, 1968. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Stub and keep. This is just an except from the George Wallace page. The campaign inself was notable, particularly in the civil rights context as it played out in American politics of the time. Xymmax (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And source. Notable enough for inclusion. Rray (talk) 18:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unsourced  C t j f 8 3  talk 21:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But not unsourceable. This was a notable campaign that always gets coverage in high school history books. If he was running today, he'd a have a huge page (like Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008.) Zagalejo^^^ 00:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep can be developed.  Shiva eVolved  23:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Regarding things to avoid in a Wikipedia article, "overly detailed" isn't one of them. Although there is some validity to an argument that this is covered in the articles about Wallace and about the 1968 presidential election, the Wallace campaign was the last third-party run to win any electoral votes, and marked the last real "states rights" vs. "civil rights" test.  This is a natural spinoff from the '68 election, as is the other nominated article about RFK.  Is it a great article?  Not yet.  But it is a great topic. Mandsford (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Topic clearly continues to attract non-trivial coverage (e.g. the PBS documentary in the external links, added by Dhartung when he started cleaning the article) and has historical significance per Mandsford. WP:IINFO does not mean "coherent information on a clearly defined topic which I'm not interested in and want to delete". cab (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Regardless of the racial policies of Wallace, he had a significant effect on the outcome of the 1968 presidential voting. There are numerous reliable sources with substantial coverage of this campaign, thus satisfying WP:N. Edison (talk) 07:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Candidate was one of the very few third-party candidates to have gained electoral votes in a presidential election. I agree with Mandsford and cab's opinions. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:36, 14 December 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.