Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Colorado's 4th 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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. Daniel (talk) 08:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

2006 Colorado's 4th congressional district election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. Anything notable about the race can be put into 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 06:07, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely passes the GNG, and there's enough content out there to justify a standalone article although I do not object to a merge in the current state. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, merging it into the general Arizona article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read my sentence before copying and pasting that response from other AfDs? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Arizona????? I'm thinking WP:SK3 may apply if nom thinks that's a good idea. Smartyllama (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Also, WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number   5  7  17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Per what I said on two prior requests: Every single election has a page here, it would be weird to just be missing two or three. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete This article itself reeks of POV pushing, considering that it tries to act as if this was a single-issue election, and is written with clear bias to try to make it somehow seem that the winner of the election lost. It is clearly not a comprehensive article, and it ignores 2 facts, that people vote for a candidate that for or against an incumbent, so even if some voters are motivated by dislike, others are by like, so to treat the incumbent as the only candidate of substance is not giving a good view. Also, when the two top candidates garner only 89% of the vote, maybe we need to look at who 3rd party candidates are and why. As written this is a POV-pushing hatchet job. As wrtitten it should just be a section of the article on the winner, with a bit better analysis and less single-issue falacies and POV-pushing motivated by clear animus on the part of many editors against anyone who believes in man/woman marriage, a clear animus that in not much time after this motivated Colorado to try to force an artist to create works that he did not agree to create. If the choice is between such a POV-pushing hatchet job and no article at all, we should clearly choose no article and not engage in such creation of super biased articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Colorado, where prose is more than welcome. The above statement "Every single election has a page here" is false and not grounded in reality: we do not and should not have individual articles on every individual seat. Reywas92Talk 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:43, 11 February 2021 (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.