Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virginia's 10th Senate district election, 2015


 * 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 Delete There is consensus that standalone pages are not appropriate. Redirects can be created if users feel them to be needed, but there is not consensus here about that. Vanamonde (talk) 10:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Virginia's 10th Senate district election, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Another small cluster of minimally substanced and minimally sourced articles about election results in individual districts. As with the 2017 set listed below, we simply do not need 140 standalone articles about the individual results in each individual house and senate district in a statewide legislative election -- the correct way to handle this is a combination of one overview article about the election as a whole, combined with one base article about each electoral district where all of its election results in all of the elections appear in the same place. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment. So what happens if we combine all the articles into one, and then, say, Virginia's 29th Senate district election, 2015 ends up being a very long section compared to the other sections; is it then open for people to say, "You need to cut that section down in order to avoid giving it undue weight compared to our coverage of the other 2015 elections"? When there are standalone articles about subtopics (as opposed to one big article about the topic as a whole), are people freer to expand on certain subtopics as much as they want, without needing to worry about WP:UNDUE concerns? Will it be permissible to spin out sections into standalone articles if needed, down the road? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On what grounds would that one section ever conceivably become wildly longer than any other section in the article? We make these decisions on the basis of reality, not on the basis of hypothetical spitballing. Bearcat (talk) 00:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm not saying don't merge it. You'll notice, I put a "comment" rather than a "keep". I'm just asking what happens if one section gets way larger than the others, for example if we have, say, 30 mostly uncompetitive elections and then 10 somewhat competitive elections, of which a few are so competitive that they attract major resources and attention, justifying a larger section. That sounds like typical Virginia politics, actually. Or sometimes even if a race isn't competitive, there may be something unusual about it that draws national attention, such as a transgender journalist running against a social conservative who introduced a bill regulating transgender access to bathrooms. We can cross that bridge later, if you don't like to speculate. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 01:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all Completely unnecessary. Can be covered in an article on the election, a specific results article if that gets too big and the electoral district articles. Number   5  7  08:37, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all per above; this is like giving an article for every result by constituency of the Hamburg state election. Pointless and unnecessary (low-traffic in any case), better compiled within a single article. Mélencron (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you want the closing admin to construe that as supporting a merge and redirect, like what they're doing over at Articles for deletion/Virginia's 2nd House of Delegates district election, 2017? N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 15:58, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's unlikely that users will require one, given the low traffic to each individual article. Mélencron (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'm merging all the content into the individual constituency articles before it gets deleted. N I H I L I S T I C (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:37, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete These are an entirely unnecessary series of articles. They are a content fork that actually makes it more confusing for readers. AusLondonder (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the individual constituency entries in Navbox_VAHseDist. There are valid search terms, and the proposed targets are unlikely to be moved.. Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:51, 11 April 2017 (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.