Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/65th Oregon Legislative Assembly


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

65th Oregon Legislative Assembly

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Therapyisgood (talk) 03:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * There are many similar articles to this, see This and This also. Plus some that seem much worse This is much shorter and has less information. For me, I'm mostly trying to turn already existing redlinks blue.


 * This template has all of these unwritten articles, so if we consider this article not good enough, that seems to defeat the purpose of the template. Masohpotato (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics,  and Oregon. Skynxnex (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Such legislature articles are almost always considered notable. WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE does not apply here, as there is a clear and limited encyclopedic scope. Curbon7 (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to further clarify why I think this should be kept because "it's just the way it is" isn't a great reason. There is so much potential content that can go into these legislature articles because there is so much notable and important stuff that occurs in each legislative session that can't be spun off into their own articles. Newspapers.com is a great location to find sources on debates about bottle bills or gun regulations or local tax changes. Each of these legislative articles can become a featured article given the right amount of attention. Curbon7 (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't quite understand exactly how the nominator thinks this is indiscriminate but beyond the, probably overly primary sources in the article, there is coverage in reliable of this session as a session:, , for three examples. Skynxnex (talk) 04:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep: Inherently notable article Alexcs114 (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep Are there sources that provide end of session recaps - yes. Are there sources that provide legislative session previews - yes. Are there sources that can provide additional context of legislation that is debated - yes. In general, the reasoning around WP:NSEASON and why we have articles about individual election contests can and should apply to legislative sessions. --Enos733 (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Can and should the article be improved - yes. However, that is not a reason for deletion. - Enos733 (talk) 17:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly notable. The nominator's rationale does not make sense here. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @Therapyisgood, would you consider withdrawing this AfD? It appears to be a snow keep. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, but draftify. Article is clearly not ready to be in the mainspace, with a total lack of secondary sources (which are freely available).  Sounder Bruce  21:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to draftification. This is not a case where doing so would be beneficial. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree there is no need to send this to draft.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly a notable topic with easy enough to find sources.  Dr vulpes  (💬 • 📝) 19:32, 4 June 2023 (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.