Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Georgia's 8th 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 no consensus to delete. Some discussion between keeping and merging, but it looks like that discussion might need to be broader in scope and brought up in a different venue.  bibliomaniac 1  5  22:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

2006 Georgia's 8th congressional district election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article does not pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. It's literally just a regular election race. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 21:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. No actual rationale presented for deletion. The implicit claim that news media did not cover a contested Congressional election is ridiculous and patently uninformed. A fine way to make Wikipedia look ridiculous. What next -- "just an regular king of England"? "Just an regular species of dinosaur"? "Just an regular [whatever]" is just another form of IDONTCARE ABOUT, which is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006.  Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The media covers EVERY election. The story just isn't that enough to pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. We don't make an every article about every single sports match, now do we? KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I'll also have to point out for transparency's sake that this article had been bundled into an earlier AfD, which was closed as keep. Love of Corey (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to 2006_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_Georgia, which this largely just duplicates and more prose is always welcome. Individual House races do not automatically need their own articles. Reywas92Talk 01:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. An "ordinary" election for an idividual seat in a national legislature is definitely notable and is deserving of a standalone WP article. Easy enough to add extra sources here in addition to the NYT article, certainly passes WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 12:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It was not a special election, but a regular election that would've occurred in early November every two years regardless of who held that seat. That's why it's better suited to be merged into the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona list-article thingy and nothing else. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 15:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - Passes the GNG.. "The media covers EVERY election" is acknowledgement of that and yes the coverage is significant. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, merging it into the general Georgia 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) 22:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * You're making a WP:ITSCRUFT argument after the GNG being met was pointed out. SPLIT, which is neither guideline nor policy, does not apply when this election itself meets the GNG and has that much citable content. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out 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) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, "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." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number   5  7  17:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Extremely Strong Keep Every other election has an article here, it would be weird not having just this one. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 21:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not "every other election" has an article. There are only a handful of articles on individual, general elections. Love of Corey (talk) 01:34, 8 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.