Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hillary Clinton presidential 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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 20:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton presidential campaign

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TWODABS  CatcherStorm    talk   03:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions.  sst  ✈  05:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as disambiguation. TWODABS only makes sense if there's a clear primary topic, see Barack Obama presidential campaign or Mitt Romney presidential campaign as other examples. Which campaign would you consider her primary one? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Ricky81682 hits the nail squarely on the head – there's no point in deleting this, as neither article would be moved to this title, nor would be appropriate to redirect it to either one of the two. Number   5  7  09:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: TWODABS does not say there should be no disambiguation pages with only two entries: it refers to cases where there is a primary topic plus one other, which can be better handled by a hatnote. WP:TWODABS says: If neither of the two meanings is primary, then a normal disambiguation page is used at the base name. Pam  D  10:14, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, did you mean WP:TWODABS? If you click on it, you'll see it only refers to disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary topic, which doesn't fit this. Perfectly valid dab page. Would you consider withdrawing nomination? Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. If one of the campaigns fizzled early, you might have an argument. But with this candidate, both campaigns are noteworthy. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:54, 11 January 2016 (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.