Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election


 * 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. (Procedural close/Nomination withdrawn) (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of outside notability. Fails WP:GNG, should be merged back to the state's list of congressional elections for that year Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of these articles are basically stubs, others go into a little more detail about primaries - but none of them actually show notability from an outside source. '''Edit: I'm aware I can't close the AfD now, but I no longer think these articles should be deleted. I'll go through and make the necessary edits because most of them are notable. Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)''' Another article that was more a political mudfight was nominated separately. Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following articles for roughly the same reasons (no evidence of WP:GNG, sometimes may tell a good story but has no outside notability):
 * 2006 California's 4th congressional district election
 * 2006 California's 11th congressional district election
 * 2006 Colorado's 5th congressional district election
 * 2006 Colorado's 7th congressional district election
 * 2006 Georgia's 4th congressional district election
 * 2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election
 * 2006 Michigan's 8th congressional district election (the writer, who I'm guessing was close in some way to the losing candidate, even admitted up-front that this article was basically not notable at all)
 * 2006 Minnesota's 5th congressional district election
 * 2006 Minnesota's 6th congressional district election
 * 2006 Ohio's 13th congressional district election
 * 2006 Virginia's 2nd congressional district election
 * 2006 West Virginia's 2nd congressional district election


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  12:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge all EXCEPT the California 4th, California 11th, Georgia's 4th, and Minnesota's 5th articles - The exempted articles all seem well-developed and well-sourced to me. I don't see the value in removing their content in their entirety. As for the other articles, merge them all into the appropriate House election articles. Love of Corey (talk) 12:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all on procedural grounds. Each of these articles needs to be individually evaluated. It's doubtful that even the majority of these articles cannot be developed further into articles. For example, the first nomination for Arizona's 6th, a quick search on Newspapers.com yields hundreds of articles on the election. Many of them appear to be in-depth, but would take some time to slog through them all. I didn't look at the rest of them, but given Love of Corey's comments, this clearly needs to be broken into separate discussions.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * is there any way to separate the deletion discussions now? Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , yup... typo. Thanks.  Onel 5969  TT me 05:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Not once you've started the AfD, except to withdraw the nomination, which you now can't do, since there is a merge !vote.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , ah sucks. Informally, consider the Nomination withdrawn - I'll start improving the articles, and renominate the ones that truly aren't notable
 * also, the original nomination is for AZ-1, not AZ-6 Theleekycauldron (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So you say Arizona's 6th has a number of available but unused WP:RS that could be implemented into its article. Do you have anything like that for the other articles that you could point out? Love of Corey (talk) 23:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see an article on the Arizona 6th - I'd love to draft one thoughTheleekycauldron (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought they were talking about Arizona's 1st, and I didn't bother to fact-check. Love of Corey (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you have to look at the candidates, literally hundreds of articles.  Onel 5969  <i style="color:blue">TT me</i> 05:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. First, I believe than a contested election between candidates for a seat in the United States Congress is inherently notable. Second, it is inappropriate to lump all of these articles together.  And third, the two Minnesota articles in this group nomination are adequately developed and should not be deleted in any event.  Kablammo (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I more than agree with your second and third points - this was my first bundle AfD and nominating them in this way was a mistake. As to your first point, I disagree with the notion that any congressional race that's contested is notable by definition. Yes, contested elections usually generate notability, but if the 2010 elections have meant anything, it's that close or upset elections can often fly under the radar, especially at lower levels of government. Republicans flipped hundreds of state legislature seats and dozens of congressional seats, the state legislature seats in particular in almost complete silence. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comment. One of the problems with these articles is that candidates who are incumbent members of Congress are inherently notable, while their opponents are not. Therefore articles on those opponents are often (usually?) redirected to the election articles.  If those election articles are deleted then we are reinforcing the inherent advantage incumbents have in those races.  For better or worse, WP is a go-to source and our failure to provide information on candidates does not serve the reader.  Kablammo (talk) 11:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand - do you mean that because incumbents are usually more notable than their challengers, that WP should keep these election articles to provide info on the challengers? Even if they aren't notable? It's not like the same amount of information won't be available whether it's in a list broken down by year and state or whether it's a floofy-yet-meaningless separate article. I think the list format can sometimes represent the information more concisely when there truly isn't anything else to be found. Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just because something is notable does NOT mean it must have a separate article. Of course these are notable topics that should be on Wikipedia, but they are covered at pages like 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio and 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in West Virginia where more prose is welcome. We should not have 435 new articles every two years. Reywas92Talk 18:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * If contested elections between candidates for congressional seats are indeed inherently notable as you say, then we should've gotten way more articles for more recent races during the 2018 and 2020 House elections. Most of the articles listed for deletion, as they stand now, don't indicate any sort of inherent notability to me. Personally, I consider the 2018 California's 10th congressional district election, 2018 California's 21st congressional district election, 2018 California's 39th congressional district election, and 2018 New York's 14th congressional district election articles as good templates for articles on regular, non-special elections. The former three are about competitive races, while the latter is about the unexpected results of a primary, which influenced the rest of that race. If election articles are not as extensive and well-developed as those, then I doubt there's something there. Unless you do have sources that could expand those articles into something that clearly communicates the topic's notability, then by all means, please expand those articles. Love of Corey (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep on All: Yes, Colorado 7th, Georgia 8th, and definitely West Virginia 2nd could use more sources, but the rest are very well sourced, puts them well within GNG and N, per V. Absolutely no reason for this AfD and, who has been here awhile (since 2017) should know that.  A trout for them, a speedy keep for all this, and some improvement for the ones mentioned.  Let's move on. - <small style="white-space:nowrap;border:1px solid #FF7518;padding:1px;"> Neutralhomer  •  Talk  • 21:55 on January 3, 2021 (UTC) •  #WearAMask • #BlackLivesMatter
 * To be fair, I made the acc back in 2017 to make one edit - I've only *really* been here for 6 months or so. Also, why not just use ? But for the merge suggestion up top I would have already withdrawn this nomination. Theleekycauldron (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Even if each article has to be judged individually, the Keep!votes are arguing that all of these articles are inherently notable, per WP:GNG. If that is so, you could argue this for every last American congressional district election in existence, yet we don't have any articles for any of the other such races. No one seems to be arguing that these particular races are more notable compared to other races, nor are they putting forth any evidence indicating such. I'd like to see how these races stand out and how this general topic would be considered notable enough that individual articles should be created. Love of Corey (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep all - relatively close elections in a wave election year, which was widely covered. Bearian (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you define as a "close election"? I looked through some of these articles and these races were decided by a margin of approximately 5-10 points. I personally define a close election as having a margin of about 1-2 points, preferably less. Love of Corey (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.