Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Amy Walter. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:48, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Cook Political Report with Amy Walter

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The Cook report gets, at most, a brief mention in a few sources. I could not find sources about the Report itself that confirm that it is, by itself, notable. What non-primary sources appear in the article are used for original research that compares the Report's predictions with elections outcomes, and are thus not suitable for independent notability. Cortador (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment, i am also not finding much independent reporting on the report itself, but i find quite a bit of the report disseminated in all kinds of primary and social channels. that alone of course does not mean the content is sufficiently notable.
 * Iljhgtn (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have seen some mentioning. As of now, the article has a single independent source mentioning the Cook Report - a throwaway reference in a Politico article. I also noticed that this article has had tags for years, until someone removed them in 2022, stating that there were enough in-line citations, apparently ignoring that they were exclusively primary sources. Cortador (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Websites,  and United States of America.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amy Walter, my own (albeit precusory) searches failed to turn up sourcing to satisfy the GNG, article itself is full of original research and self-citations. Not implausible search term. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can support this. Cortador (talk) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect: as suggested by Goldsztajn, as people could stills search for the Report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cortador (talk • contribs) 12:00, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Amy Walter, per Goldsztajn. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't like redirects like this as you could also make a good case for redirecting to Charlie Cook. Agree this doesn't seem to meet our current notability guidelines, though. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 17:50, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see the point as Cook is the founder, though Walter's name is directly incorporated into the name of the Report right now. What would be your suggestion? Cortador (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong opinion here. There's also the Cook Partisan Voting Index, which has gotten more significant attention (and is used pretty widely by forecasters). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems like that article has the same issue: a few sources using the Index, yet none talking about it. Cortador (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the biggest problem here isn’t that the Cook Political Report isn’t a notable organization — they’re routinely cited in coverage of U.S. elections,   with articles sometimes revolving entirely around their analysis and rating changes — and more that this page is just poorly constructed. I agree it relies too heavily on its own site for sources and that the cycle-by-cycle analysis is excessive. I will work on restructuring the page to rely more heavily on outside sources while this debate continues. But in my view, getting rid of this page would be a mistake given their presence in the world of political analysis.

--Skm989898 (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We can't conflate Z quoting X saying something about Y as conferring notability on X. We need SIGCOV about X in and of itself. In this case we need analyis that discusses the impact of the Cook Political Report, or its methods or its reliablility or its influence. But a long list of sources where other people quote its reports only tells us about the subject of the reports, it is synthesis to draw conclusions about its notability from that alone. Of the sources above, only the last one is indirectly about the Report (and at best only constitutes a passing mention), it's really more about Charlie Cook themself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 07:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's where I'm at. Almost no sources are about the Cook Report, they are just using data from it. The articles are always about election X and poll Y. Even if this article was not deleted, once everything that relies on passing mentions or primary sources gets removed, we will be left with half the lead and nothing else. I think redirecting as suggested above is the right move, and possibly including whatever is actually noteworthy about the Report in Charlie Cook's or Amy Walter's articles. Cortador (talk) 12:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While it is true that per the GNG you do need SIGCOV, it's not unreasonable to argue that we should consider how broadly something is cited when determining its notability, especially in what would otherwise be an edge case. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 05:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd agree and that's why I'm in favour of a redirect here, rather than delete. Yes, it would appear the reports are widely cited, but that's *our impression*, not something we're yet to see supported by reliable sourcing. In the absence of that sourcing, we're engaged in SYNTHESIS for the purposes of keep. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 08:33, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Determining that something is widely-cited based on there being a lot of citations to it is not SYNTH. Including it in the article arguably would be, but just for helping with determining notability, it isn't. And again, being widely-cited isn't explicitly part of the notability guidelines, but clearly with everything else being equal, something widely-cited would have more of a claim to notability than something that isn't, if the sources discussing the subject are right on the line. I don't think that's the case here, though, so I also favor a redirect (though as mentioned above, I don't particularly like redirects like this, as there isn't a great target). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 15:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think we're disagreeing ... :) ... nevertheless, if you'll pardon the pun, there's a lot of devilish detail to "a lot". Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2023 (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.