264:. I guess I'm not following the deletion argument here. Even assuming that the caucus served no function whatsoever (which the article seems to contradict), "notable" doesn't mean the same thing as "consequential"; Obama may have been a shoe-in but there was still a caucus and there is still coverage and it seems to me that omitting articles like this one just leaves us with gappy, incomplete coverage of the 2012 election. Would we decide not to cover any primary contest that has an overwhelming result? --
300:. The caucus happened. People showed up. Just like we have articles for the Democratic primary process (and the Republican primary process) we have one for Iowa, since there is one for the Republicans. It provides equal weight, and there was notable coverage in mass media with the Obama web conference. If you want to create one for the 2004 Iowa Republican caucus feel free to do so.
317:
Everything is sourced here and there's no harm in keeping this; people are going to be curious about what the other side polled despite Obama going unopposed, and the elections and caucuses do have a purpose in keeping their side occupied, even if there's nothing much to do now.
165:
350:
not as newsworthy or exciting as the GOP's but perfectly notable. As for merging this is not too short an article, but merged with even a dozen others never mind 49 it would be too long.--
159:
126:
99:
94:
103:
239:
86:
282:
217:
180:
147:
357:
90:
141:
408:
378:
361:
342:
309:
292:
273:
253:
231:
209:
68:
17:
197:
137:
82:
74:
187:
53:
374:
427:
205:
40:
289:
66:
153:
370:
423:
36:
201:
404:
352:
333:
286:
269:
173:
57:
305:
249:
227:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
422:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
400:
387:
321:
265:
396:
301:
200:
were notable, the
Democratic Caucuses were not. Hence, an article is not justified.
245:
223:
120:
285:. We can cover the caucus without giving it an article of its own. --
416:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
52:. Snow keep. Deletion concerns appear to have been addressed. (
116:
112:
108:
399:
and is reliably sourced. Merits stand-alone article.--
172:
386:
Caucuces for US president are always a notable fact.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
430:). No further edits should be made to this page.
283:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012
240:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
186:
8:
238:Note: This debate has been included in the
216:Note: This debate has been included in the
237:
215:
218:list of Iowa-related deletion discussions
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
83:Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2012
75:Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2012
1:
409:05:57, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
379:16:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
362:11:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
343:06:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
310:04:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
293:04:28, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
274:01:38, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
254:00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
232:00:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
210:23:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
69:17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
447:
419:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
198:Republican Caucuses
371:SupernovaExplosion
369:has references. --
48:The result was
355:
340:
256:
243:
234:
221:
54:non-admin closure
438:
421:
351:
341:
336:
330:
329:
324:
244:
222:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
64:
34:
446:
445:
441:
440:
439:
437:
436:
435:
434:
428:deletion review
417:
360:
334:
327:
322:
319:
202:Victor Victoria
133:
97:
81:
78:
58:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
444:
442:
433:
432:
412:
411:
390:
388:User:Lucifero4
381:
364:
356:
353:JohnBlackburne
345:
312:
295:
287:Metropolitan90
276:
258:
257:
235:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
61:Alpha_Quadrant
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
443:
431:
429:
425:
420:
414:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
389:
385:
382:
380:
376:
372:
368:
365:
363:
359:
354:
349:
346:
344:
339:
337:
326:
325:
316:
313:
311:
307:
303:
299:
296:
294:
291:
288:
284:
280:
277:
275:
271:
267:
263:
260:
259:
255:
251:
247:
241:
236:
233:
229:
225:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
199:
196:Although the
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
65:
63:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
418:
415:
392:
383:
366:
347:
331:
320:
314:
297:
278:
261:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
60:
59:
49:
47:
31:
28:
160:free images
424:talk page
401:JayJasper
266:Arxiloxos
246:• Gene93k
224:• Gene93k
37:talk page
426:or in a
302:Calwatch
127:View log
39:or in a
335:chatter
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
397:WP:GNG
395:Meets
290:(talk)
138:Google
104:delete
358:deeds
279:Merge
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
405:talk
393:Keep
384:Keep
375:talk
367:keep
348:keep
323:Nate
315:Keep
306:talk
298:Keep
270:talk
262:Keep
250:talk
228:talk
206:talk
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
50:keep
281:to
188:TWL
125:– (
407:)
377:)
308:)
272:)
252:)
242:.
230:)
220:.
208:)
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
56:)
403:(
373:(
338:)
332:(
328:•
304:(
268:(
248:(
226:(
204:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.