Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri primary, 2004
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Missouri primary, 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
All information needed is found in Missouri Democratic primary, 2004. There is no need for two articles on the same primary. Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Duplication of a more relevant article. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 02:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect Nothing wrong with the content itself, and the name itself doesn't seem a problem, so it would be a useful redirect without a problematic history. Nyttend (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this title could refer to any primary to any reader, so redirecting doesn't solve the problem. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, what do you mean? I'm a little confused. Perhaps you mean essentially "it doesn't necessarily mean the Democratic primary"? If so, we could just make it a disambiguation page for the D primary, the R primary, and any other party primaries that have articles. Nyttend (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But this title could refer to any primary to any reader, so redirecting doesn't solve the problem. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 04:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect. Based on the article histories, the article up for discussion is older than the one that is considered the main article. Since there is an overlap in time both these were edited, a history merge is not desirable, but since the content was obviously duplicated in the later article, a redirect to save the edit history is warranted. - Mgm|(talk) 12:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Redirect, merge any non-overlapped info Vartanza (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.