Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Maryland State Senate District 31 Election

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete all of the related pages. ugen 64 22:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

2006 Maryland State Senate District 31 Election
Besides being of limited notability, this article is all speculation. RickK21:37, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a fortune teller. Megan1967 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, how different is this article in practice from U.S. presidential election, 2008 as far as speculation. If this goes, the 2008 Presidential article has to go. Sugarking 12:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit 9and only one since) Mel Etitis ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hasn't happened yet.  Besides, I don't think State Senate election contests merit separate articles, even when they have already happened.   --BM 12:49, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with User:BM. It's too local. If kept, we's set a precedent for articles about every single local election in history. Future national elections can be kept based on national interest (providing they have sufficient information), this one can't. Mgm|(talk) 12:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is silly. Wikipedia has tons of articles of marginal or only local interest. As somebody involved in local politics, I give credit to the author for caring enough about local elections to create the page. Jrlformd 13:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Note User has 5 edits, one to this VfD, and the remainder to articles connected with thie VfD. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge into a general article on the 2006 Maryland elections and one on all the elections to have occured in District 31. - SimonP 14:43, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge. Note there's also 2006 Maryland State Senate District 33 Election, 2006 Maryland State Senate District 30 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 33A Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 30 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 31 Election, 2006 Maryland House of Delegates District 32 Election, 2006 Maryland State Senate District 32 Election, and 2006 Candidates for Anne Arundel County Executive. One article on the 2006 Maryland legislative election would work (at least when it gets closer), or ones on the overall history of each district, but articles for a single year, for a single district, for a single legislative body? Too granular, and would make Wikipedia further US-centric (and yes, I'm a US citizen/resident). Wikipedia is not League of Women Voters. Niteowlneils 16:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia keeps getting more local, soon I'll be able to move User:Niteowlneils/2500 Augustine wheelchair ramp (factual, verifiable, and "notability is not a criteria") into the main article namespace. Niteowlneils 16:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm very concerned that there is so much distaste for expanding the knowledge base. Why should the writer not provide additional information? The pages there are not hurting anybody and may actually provide additional information for those who want to look for info on the internet. Deleting the pages seem like an effort to restrict information, which seems to go against the point of having a Wikipedia. Davidmycanty 16:47, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Note User has 3 edits, all to this VfD entry. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I spent a lot of time creating these pages to provide for public use. The people of my county Anne Arundel County, Maryland deserve the opportunity to find out about candidates on the net. If their search comes to Wikipedia to find it, so be it. Dickdexter 16:50, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Note User has around 200 edits, of which about 10 are to pages other than these district election pages. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Question: Is that a crime? Jrlformd
 * No, but it's a good indicator of the weight of a vote. Chris 01:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * The people in your county certainly deserve the opportunity to find out about candidates; but Wikipedia doesn't have to turn itself into a world-wide local Voter Guide for their sake. Start your own web site, unless the League of Women Voters is doing it already. --BM 18:34, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a substitute ballot paper. Unless, of course, I should start wheeling out 2004 Swansea County Council elections, Penderry ward, seat 1 to 2004 Swansea County Council elections, Penderry ward, seat 4, as well as another 4 seat articles each for the other 17 wards.  In terms of those in the seats, I believe precedent is those elected to a reasonable level (parish councils don't cut it) get to stay, and those merely running but not actually winning stay out, unless they are notable for not actually winning. Chris 18:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Note User has edits to such world-bending and articles of encyclopedic proportion as 96.4 FM The Wave which is no bettter or worse than other articles of local interest. Jrlformd.
 * ... and your point is? Chris 01:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete because of speculation, limited notablility and interest, and sockpuppet activity. Gamaliel 18:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this and all similar articles. Wikipedia does not need an article on every election for every office in every state in the US. This is Ashlee Simpsonesque overkill. Not all pulbic offices are notable. Not all people who hold those offices are notable. Not all elections for those offices are notable. Speculation is the least of this article's problems. -R. fiend 18:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see much of speculation. The information present seems to be relevant. Any information is good information. --Boshtang 19:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Strongly Delete all of them. Small local elections are not notable. Small local elections that haven't even happened yet are less notable. DaveTheRed 20:00, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is speculation and not notable enough for an article right now. Carrp | Talk 20:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Having the author of this text nominate valid articles for deletion in retaliation isn't helping anyone, kthx. Mike H 20:03, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: I have not nominated any articles for deletion. However, I do not understand how anybody can consider this speculation and less worthy of inclusion than some other articles - Dickdexter, 20:32, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * You may be right, and in that case those other articles would also have to be deleted. It's all a matter of how exactly you mean it. If you are convinced by argumentation here, you can nominate other articles on the same grounds. If you feel the argumentation here is wrong, you should not nominate other articles in an attempt to prove it wrong. Radiant! 11:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge. If you check out, this is far from the only such article being created.  Everything is factual; the worst that can be said about these articles is that they are currently stubs and may not get enough information to become an encyclopedic article.  My feeling is that this set of articles be combined into Maryland elections, 2006.  If that combined article begins exceeding the 32 KB standard limit, then there's nothing stopping us from splitting it back up, as appropriate. &mdash; DLJessup 05:01, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as speculation, concur with DaveTheRed. Radiant! 11:44, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, barring some evidence of special notability for this race (scandal of national significance, etc.). Having been involved in several campaigns at this level, I see no reason to believe they are encyclopedic; in the event they involve political figures of some notability, they can be covered in appropriate biographical articles. RadicalSubversiv E 12:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (including the ones found by Niteowlneils. Future events are inherently speculative and unverifiable.  The election itself is more suitable to WikiNews than a general knowledge encyclopedia.  Rossami (talk) 23:38, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Speculation is not encyclopedic.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:49, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to the Wikibooks Voter's Guide], which is a fledgling part of the one of Wikipedia's sister projects. That would be a perfect home for this. Tuf-Kat 22:24, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * I support this recommendation. Philwelch 20:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree that this article is mainly just trying to play fortune teller, not trying to be informative. Zscout370 17:47, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Any particular reason that I, a North Carolinian, should care? Do you realize what it would be like if every district election in this country had its own page?  Slightly interesting, but no more.  Ridethefire3211  18:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This just doesn't seem notable enough to anyone outside of that district in Maryland. nanaszczebrzeszyn
 * Delete. It's not about norability, but about chronology.  Encyclop&aelig;dias shouldn't be about the future. Mel Etitis  ( &Mu;&epsilon;&lambda; &Epsilon;&tau;&eta;&tau;&eta;&sigmaf; ) 18:24, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just a question: this article was pushed to VfD on March 7th. Under normal circumstances, that would mean that a decision should have been reached on or about March 12th. It's now March 20th. What's the hold up? &mdash; DLJessup 02:21, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * No idea, but I personally think that if you take my vote out and a few others, I think the vote will still swing towards deletion. Zscout370 02:47, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.