Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri bellwether

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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  05:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missouri bellwether

I think we have WP:OR issues here, as well as this being questionably encyclopedic and probably at best deserves one line in the Missouri article. (The page seems to have been created in response to similar information being excluded by other editors at the Missouri article). Peyna 22:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Seems reasonably well-sourced. Needs a little style help, and perhaps a new title, but Google results are very strong (greater than 100,000 hits). Given that Peyna is the editor trying to keep this off the Missouri article, I think this may be a bad-faith nom. Irongargoyle 23:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Pardon? I just don't think it merits an article, and gave some reasons why. The first link on the list you provide pretty much shoots down the entire article as it currently stands. A good number of the rest of the g-hits are by, not surprisingly, people from Missouri. Peyna 00:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would add that even reading more than I should have on the subject, Missouri does not come off as a "bellwether." It is not a trend-setter, it is at best a trend-follower, and not a very good one lately. Peyna 00:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment WP:OR depends on whether it is all the work of the author in question, not whether or not the works cited are from Missouri. I can see the argument for POV being made here, but the USA Today link does something to to counter these arguments. This article merely cites a well known (and frequently cited) phenomenon, who said it and why. It doesn't then draw the POV conclusion that this should then hold in the future. I'm not saying Missouri is a bellwether or not, I honestly don't care, but there are a lot of people out there who are saying that it is. Irongargoyle 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - 100,000 google references and easily found third party references should be enough. If picking 24 out of 25 Presidential elections over 100 years is not noteworthy I don't know what is. Americasroof 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I would call that coincidence. I have yet to see anything suggesting a cause-and-effect relationship. Peyna 03:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Something doesn't have to be a cause-effect relationship to be noteworthy. Nor do I think the article (or Americasroof's comment) makes any claims to a cause-effect relationship. Irongargoyle 04:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
      • My point is that if you have enough variables, you'll end up with a few "interesting" looking sequences like this, but you can't draw any logical conclusions from them. Peyna 04:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment I agree completely, but the notability (in this case) does not result from its scientific rigor (however much we might like it to). It results from the number of people who have cited the pattern. Astrology is an extreme example of this. Things like the List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy thrive on the law of large numbers. Missouri bellwether may be legit, or it could be completely spurrious instance of the LLN, but for the purposes of this discussion it doesn't really matter. Irongargoyle 05:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Numerous third party references. Whether or not the concept is factual doesn't make it's obviously very prevelant use any less notable. I can see style and POV issue in the article but AfD is not the proper course to correct those matters. Agne 11:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I have rewritten the article to answer some of the nominator's concerns. I believe upon review you will find the article well sourced (to alleviate any OR concerns) with several national news outlets highlighting the notability of the term. I also included references to those, like the nom, who disagree with Missouri's bellwether status for the benefit of NPOV. I hope the nom will review the article and consider withdrawing the AfD. Agne 10:01, 20 August 2006 (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.