Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan


 * 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   redirect to Pete_Hoekstra. Effectively a merge, since the material is already extensively covered in the target article. Black Kite (talk) 10:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Pete Hoekstra 2012 Superbowl advertisement in Michigan

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable WP:COATRACK article. Also WP:NOTNEWS.  Running On Brains (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Running On Brains (talk) 22:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Article was hot button event after the 2012 Superbowl. Hoekstra changed his advertising technique after that ad received poor publicity.  Halftime in America is also a 2012 Superbowl advertisement, and has an article about it.  At a minimum, the article should be merged with Pete Hoekstra.  There is no evidence provided here that the article meets WP:COATRACK and/or WP:NOTNEWS.--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem with "merge" is that this issue is already covered in its entirety at Pete Hoekstra (as it should be IMO) and it would leave an implausible redirect. This is a small incident in this politician's career. All coverage was within a 2 week window following the controversy; this is well within the purview of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER (just noticed the depreciated redirect). And it does qualify as a WP:COATRACK article; it's a whole 3 sentences on the supposed subject of the article and more than 2 paragraphs on the criticism of Pete Hoekstra and company. Sorry, it's a nicely written article, but it's just not notable on its own, hence why I'm here. - Running On Brains (talk) 01:21, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment If this is a COATRACK article, the issue then becomes whether or not the advertisement deserves a one line article on Wikipedia acknowledging that it exists. The coatrack issue can be resolved by deleting the "Criticism" and "Aftermath" sections, IF they do indeed need to be deleted.--Jax 0677 (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's an implausible redirect term, but redirects are cheap. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment Why does Halftime in America get its own article if this does not?--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Pete Hoekstra, where the topic already has a substantial section.TheLongTone (talk) 00:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per TheLongTone. The content of the commercial and the subsequent controversy is already discussed in Pete Hoekstra, as it should be; in fact, there is little in this article that isn't already in the article about Hoekstra. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. - Running On Brains (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would support a merge except that there is already sufficient content on the subject in the main Pete Hoekstra article - I don't see that any further merger is necessary.  A redirect is pointless as this is a very unlikely search term, so the best course seems to be deletion.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that redirects are cheap.--Jax 0677 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * True, though even with cheap redirects I question the usefullness of this as a search term. However, I suppose there could be some value to keyword searches, so I wouldn't really be opposed to a redirect.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Kubigula: already covered (maybe even excessively) in Pete Hoekstra and of no value as a redirect.  Sandstein   06:29, 2 June 2012 (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.