Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Ohio's 2nd 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. (non-admin closure) HistoricalAccountings (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

2006 Ohio's 2nd congressional district election

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I'm nominating a bunch of articles from the same year in a bundle, but I'm keeping this one separate - sure, this one isn't notable, but the other problem is that this page feels more like an excuse for both candidates to throw mud at each other through a wikipedia page. Take away that and there's nothing left. Theleekycauldron (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 12:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 12:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 12:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - This article seems like nothing more than a character assassination piece for both candidates. There's nothing there to suggest any sort of unbiased notability that could be salvaged. Love of Corey (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - possible this violates WP:BLP? - at 04:38 PST (sorry had to sign manually)


 * Delete Generally single seat races in legislative elections do not deserve their own article and in this case the topic is already covered at the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio state election articles and Ohio's 2nd congressional district). Number   5  7  14:09, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the tradeoffs of not having Wikipedia entries on every candidate for office (especially federal offices) is that the campaign itself is notable. Is this the best example of an article about a congressional election - no - but it is well sourced (if under-referenced) article about a very competitive 2006 election. --Enos733 (talk) 05:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How exactly would it be notable? Forgive me, I wasn't 25 years old in 2006, but I'd expect you'd offer evidence of WP:RS that covered this or a way of rewriting this article to avoid the character assassination angle (or at the very least make it more neutral). Love of Corey (talk) 09:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at this concurrent discussion, a number of editors suggest that the a congressional district election does meet WP:GNG. The fact that some pages were created and others not is not evidence of against notability (see WP:OSE). As for your specific comment here, it is certainly possible to prune the prose to capture the most important elements of the race (but that is not what AfD is about). --Enos733 (talk) 16:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not acceptable. We should've had articles for every congressional race by this point, then. Love of Corey (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep - close election in a wave election year, which was widely covered. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not all close elections are notable, and coverage of the elections surrounding it doesn't make this notable - that's why we have articles by state and by year. Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We would've had more articles on such elections if that were the case. Love of Corey (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bearian and Enos733. It doesn't make sense to throw out a good article on an election like this - it's not even a stub. Swordman97  talk to me  20:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Love of Corey supports deletion. Theleekycauldron (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I edited it. Swordman97  talk to me  01:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Having one more crack at getting a result in this...
 * Don't delete, if not kept as a standalone article, it should redirect to wherever the topic is covered in the most detail, probably Ohio's 2nd congressional district. No point in deleting history that might be useful later. That said, if there are no substantial sources written after 2006, it's doubtful that WP:NEVENT is met. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Once more with feeling.
 * Delete as per Number 57. While this is a heavily covered election and the results were close, it does not fall into the criteria that have been established for warranting a page. 2020 was a wave election year, and two candidates (namely Rita Hart and Anthony Brindisi) lost by much smaller margins, by 6 and 4 votes respectively. If there is a concern about the loss of useful information, the information could best be subsumed into the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Ohio page. Ornithoptera (talk) 09:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per Number 57. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 21:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has anybody mentioned that this page already meets WP:GNG? This subject was notable enough to draw the coverage already applied and stand awaiting improvement. It was a horse race fourteen years ago. Who here is surprised somebody ended up with something on their shoe? And that the press presented it to the public? But unlike a race, this was not a game. It is a nugget of American History (with sourcing). It is factual, verifiable and cited. It's a keeper. BusterD (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep generally these should not be created, but this appears to pass the notability guideline and has more content than should be reasonable merged. I don't care too strongly either way, though. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 14:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: What is the policy reason for this nom? None was cited in the nom and the best I've seen advanced is vague hand-waving of "we don't have articles on individual house races."  No one seems to be arguing this isn't notable or that this article violates any policy.  Absent some compelling, policy-based reason to delete, I vote to keep.  DocFreeman24 (talk) 04:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes the GNG and also WP:EVENT given the sources in the article plus non-local coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:16, 7 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.