2024 Oklahoma Libertarian presidential primary : AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism , Politics , United States of America ,  and Oklahoma .  AusLondonder ( talk ) 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Libertarianism-related deletion discussions .  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] This event received coverage along with the other partisan primaries in dozens of newspapers around the state as well as the fact of it being the first LP presidential primary in the state being reported by USA Today.  Okcgunner ( talk ) 14:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep notability is determined by GNG, not the number of people involved.  The sourcing indicates that this is notable. -- User:Namiba 14:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean sources not currently at the article?  Because the article is clearly lacking in reliable secondary sources.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep We certainly shouldn't be in the business of gatekeeping political results for smaller parties and this is a proper primary election.  Nate • ( chatter ) 14:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I guess WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT are a form of gatekeeping, but they are our policies.  If you think the policies should change to give inherent notability to all political party primary elections, including minor parties, that's fine.  But for now, that's not the case.  AusLondonder ( talk ) 16:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries#Results .  It's just results, no need for separate article.  Reywas92 Talk 16:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries#Results , per Reywas92.  Not independently notable, fails WP:GNG .  All sources are  either primary or non- WP:RS -compliant.  Two of the citations are from Independent Political Report, which has been deemed an unreliable source .  What little RS-based coverage that does exist (per my search) make only brief mention of the results, not sufficient to warrant a standalone article.  Sal2100 ( talk ) 19:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I believe this is the first third party presidential primary in Oklahoma's history and generally think the election meets WP:GNG .  The main reason I don't find the merge and redirect option persuasive is that incumbent presidential primaries are usually just results and many have even less sourcing (see 1996 Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary , 2004 Oklahoma Republican presidential primary , and 2012 Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary which all have less sourcing than this article).  TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk ) 21:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I support merging those too; I'm not sure why some editor thought these needed standalone articles – the 2004 and 2012 pages were made by the same editor who mass-produced them within a couple days of each other even though the national primary page or state page can cover the content just as well.  Reywas92 Talk 22:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I would also support merging those.  SportingFlyer T · C 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] • Keep It has significant enough media coverage Expoe34 ( talk ) 02:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Where is that media coverage?  It's not at the article....  AusLondonder ( talk ) 09:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect non-notable local election with fewer than 1,000 voters with no articles which cover only this election, which can also be adequately summarised as an ATD on the results page.  SportingFlyer T · C 12:36, 10 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Since there are a number of keep ! votes here, we need to look at the sources.  KOKH-TV has one sentence about the winner.  Oklahoma Voice has two sentences about the first time this was a primary.  The USA Today article has two sentences on the novelty factor.  Nondoc.com has one sentence, who the winner was.  The Oklahoman article has one sentence on the fact the candidates appeared at a college together.  The Tulsa paper I cannot access.  The other two sources are election results and a primary link to the party.  There is clearly not enough information here to qualify this for its own page under the WP:GNG as none of the coverage was significant, but enough information to include on the website, hence the redirect is the only plausible outcome.  There are several WP:OSE arguments above about major party primaries in the state as well - perhaps we should have a discussion to see if all presidential primaries in a state for the two major US parties qualify for their own article or if they should be redirected as well?  SportingFlyer T · C 21:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : This primary received coverage along with the two 'major' parties to meet the WP:GNG .  Let'srun ( talk ) 20:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Not beyond mentioning it was going on.  It's not significant.  SportingFlyer T · C 20:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep: other primaries, such as the 2024 American Samoa Republican presidential caucuses have less than 1000 people, and they exist.  Had media coverage along with the 2 “major” parties.  And you and Reppop deleting Libertarian Primary Articles is just corrupt.  Libertarians are people too.  LordBirdWord ( talk ) 20:44, 11 March 2024 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppeteer ) [ reply ] Not going to vote, but I will comment because of the "corruption" apparently going on.  It's not a "deletion of existence" for these people, its a lack of proper sourcing for these specific pages (a couple of mentions is not significant media coverage).  It's not like were trying to delete the actual full primary page with all of the results, its just that for these pages, it doesn't add anything for it to warrant its own, separate article.  reppop talk 23:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect per previous votes.  BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk ) 02:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The primary received a good amount of coverage and is the first Libertarian Primary in the state's history.  I think it is a fine entry to remain in the encyclopedia.  Samoht27 ( talk ) 17:02, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep and Redirection.  I hope future comments can focus less on whether or not Wikipedia "should" have this article and more on whether there is adquate sourcing to estabish notability for this primary (just as we do with every article that gets nominated for deletion).  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep per above.  Skål, 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 ( talk ) 15:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Redirect to 2024 United States presidential election in Oklahoma#Libertarian primary .  Vast majority of notable sources discuss this primary as part of the larger Presidential election, unlike the Democratic and Republican primaries which have sourcing specifically talking about them.  Esolo5002 ( talk ) 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep DashCon had an attendence of less than 400 people are you saying that DashCon is also not notable?  The sources decided notability.  Questions?  four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:12, 23 March 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: redirect