Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utah gubernatorial election, 1996


 * 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. Given there is now prose, I think there is little need to spend more time discussing deletion here. Courcelles 23:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Utah gubernatorial election, 1996

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has has had no content since last month but and infobox and the ElectionsUT template. Has been once before CSD'ed under the A1 criteria but was declined by administrator DGG. I say delete. — Croisés Majestic (sur nous mars) 23:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per CSD A1 unless there is significant expansion. It could be a notable topic for an article, but the creator didn't bother adding any content, and I'm tired of cleaning up after him. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Above you say "I'm tired of cleaning up after him" as if this is a common occurence and implying that this editor is intentionally creating garbage for you.  Could you explain this further? -- Avanu (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 03:34, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * How would A1 apply to the article? It's easy to see that the page is about the 1996 Utah gubernatorial election.  I'll work on the page though.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 01:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Clearly a notable topic and there is some decent content in the infobox. Damn those things to hell, by the way... Looks like this is flagged for rescue, no rush on the speedy, let's see if somebody wants to add 25 words and 1 source to save this thing. Carrite (talk) 01:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I tagged it for rescue on the hope it would draw someone interested in improving articles.--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I added sources and prose.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 02:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep rescued based on article improvement by TheWeakWilled, nice job!--Milowent • talkblp-r 02:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I wasn't aware Wikipedia had articles like this. This article currently states: "Winning by the greatest margin in the state's history, Leavitt won every county".  Seems notable.  I would think that every election at this level should be considered notable for Wikipedia.  They always get plenty of coverage for months, or even longer in some cases.  The news media analyzes everything they do that might effect this notable event.   D r e a m Focus  02:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Question - not that there isn't any notability, but could anyone explain what specifically makes this particular election notable apart from information on either candidate? In other words, in what way does the content here merit a standalone article?  I mean, it does sound interesting, but the Democrats almost didn't put up a fight in this race, and the Republican won by a landslide. So why not just redirect this to something about Utah politics, or why Democrats didn't feel a need to run a candidate or whatever... but how is this race something really amazing? -- Avanu (talk) 03:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG I presume? See Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States, this isn't an isolated article.  There are 100s if not thousands of articles on U.S. state gubernatorial elections.--Milowent • talkblp-r  03:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep I would be absolutely staggered to discover that the election of a state governor happened without any newspapers thinking to cover it significantly. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  Alþingi  ─╢ 14:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, fairly obviously notable. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. While not every statewide election is notable, this one was filled with superlatives - most overspent, greatest margin of election, consistent polling, a last-minute major candidacy, etc.  So it is far from run of the mill.  There is, in fact, a whole category of 100s of these, but not every possibility (1000s) are included.  Some good sources were not difficult to find and add to the article before its deletion nomination.  This was 1996, not 1896; Internet sources about it can be found easily.  The nomination lives on the periphery of bad faith.  It has been rescued per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Good goin', Weak Willed! Carrite (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2011 (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.