Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election (2nd nomination)

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 merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona. Consensus exists below that the article shouldn't exist (the delete and merge arguments were the most compelling), so I was left with having to identify which of those was the stronger argued case. I have narrowly come down on the side of merging the content, in part because preserving content is a decent argument for merge over deletion, and secondly because the majority of the delete arguments did not preclude a merge as being an option they were open to. Daniel (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Arizona's 1st congressional district election

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPLIT. It is literally just an ordinary election. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This wasn't even a remotely close race, nor was it an election in which the seat switched parties. Love of Corey (talk) 00:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I screwed up the first nomination, but i still think that this specific article fails WP:GNG. Theleekycauldron (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No actual rationale presented for deletion. The implicit claim that news media did not cover a contested Congressional election is ridiculous and patently uninformed. A fine way to make Wikipedia look ridiculous. What next -- "just an ordinary king of England"? "Just an ordinary species of dinosaur"? "Just an ordinary [whatever]" is just another form of IDONTCARE ABOUT, which is not a policy-based reason for deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 23:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: The media covers EVERY election. The story just isn't that enough to pass WP:SPLIT or WP:GNG. We don't make an every article about every single sports match, now do we? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per original nominated reasons. The topic is notable for Wikipedia, but I do struggle to see why it is notable enough for a stand alone article. Impeachment articles against the US President isn't enough for a standalone article, so a small election isn't even close to getting one. Elijahandskip (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per all above fails WP:GNG. Akronowner (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 12:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona#District 1, while this election is not individually notable, being just a regular congressional election, the sources would certainly be useful there. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An "ordinary" election for an individual seat in a national legislature is definitely notable and is deserving of a standalone WP article. There are sufficient sources in the article already to pass WP:GNG. Nsk92 (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nsk92: No, it's not. It was not a special election, but a regular election that would've occurred in early November every two years regardless of who held that seat. That's why it's better suited to be merged into the 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona list-article thingy and nothing else. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:32, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's precisely my point. Every regular election for an individual seat in a national legislature is automatically presumtively notable, as far as I am concerned, and deserves a standalone WP article if it can be properly and substantively sourced. That's definitely the case here. Nsk92 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But there are literally hundreds of regular national elections being held every two years. You're saying we should create an article for EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM? Love of Corey (talk) 01:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Nobody is forcing anybody to create any articles. But the ones that are created and well sources, like this one, yes, those 'should' be kept. Apart from WP:GNG, the election also satisfies WP:EVENT, in view of the WP:LASTING provision: "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation." Nsk92 (talk) 07:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2006 United States House of Representatives elections in Arizona is a good compromise. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I confess my bias as the 3rd-party candidate in this race, but would note this was a notable race at the time. The New York Times dedicated a lengthy story that appeared in print on 24 Oct 2006 about this race as representative of a classic "purple" district. The incumbent Republican Congressman Renzi was under investigation by the US Department of Justice, and the US Attorney in Arizona was fired by the Republican Bush administration for opening the investigation into a Republican. Renzi was later convicted and spent 7 years in prison, and was pardoned by President Trump on his last day in office. And, contrary to the earlier assertion that it was not a close race, the two non-incumbent challengers combined to make it a close race; Renzi's internal polling showed him losing two weeks before the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbschlosser (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dbschlosser: Wouldn't it be better to just list that whole incident in his biography and the list-article thingy for all 2006 House elections in Arizona? "I confess my bias as the 3rd-party candidate in this race" Great for telling me that for some reason. That only weakens the Keep argument. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election. There is no basis whatsoever for automatic notability for individual seats' elections: the content can be covered just as well in the main state article. Reywas92^Talk 01:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly passes the GNG[1][2][3][4][5][6] and merging everything to the broad Arizona elections article just makes it unwieldy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Morbidthoughts: Actually, merging it into the general Arizona article would be pretty easy. A paragraph is just enough, not an entire separate article. So again, it fails WP:SPLIT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, the article doesn't need to be reduced to a paragraph; hence the standalone article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In furtherance of my merge!vote, allow me to point out WP:ROUTINE. These elections are held every two years, as required by law. And as ROUTINE says, "Run-of-the-mill events—common, everyday, ordinary items that do not stand out—are probably not notable." Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence. It's why we automatically have articles on special elections, because they do NOT fall into a ROUTINE sort of standard when it comes to the regular election cycle. Love of Corey (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. "Common, everyday" in WP:ROUTINE refers to things like Friday night high school football games and regular meetings of a local school board, not to elections to the national parliament. National parliamentary elections and their winners affect legislation, government policy, national public debate, oversight of government agencies, foreign relations and so on. That's why we see members of Congress on TV every day. The same WP:ROUTINE section, looking at its actual context, gives ample examples of events that it actually means as applicable: wedding announcements, sports scores, crime logs, sports matches, film premieres, press conferences, etc. Not even close to national parlimentary elections. Nsk92 (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said before, "Of course, these elections do not happen every day, but the fact that they are held every two years without fail also points to a common, ordinary occurrence." And we're not talking about a national parliamentary election, we're talking about a national congressional election. Two different things. Love of Corey (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, if one looks at the actual full text of Wikipedia:ROUTINE (which also goes under a more descriptive name WP:DOGBITESMAN) and the examples given there, it is completely obvious that the provision refers to routine everyday types of events, not elections to U.S. Congress (or to any other national legislature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsk92 (talk • contribs)

Merge I don't believe single seat races held as part of a general election are article-worthy. Number 5 7 17:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. article fails WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We automatically keep articles on every member of Congress, even from the early 19th century when there is less info available that there is in this article. Elections are also significant and notable. I would agree we shouldn't have articles on all lower-level elections, but Congressional ones have national impact. There are sources to meet GNG. MB 14:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying even congressional races in districts that have been historically, reliably Democratic or Republican are notable? Love of Corey (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would this include races where the only opposition is a 3rd party candidate? Would this include a race where you have to write in someone other than the incumbent?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, are you asking me or MB? I'm not following, sorry. Love of Corey (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not part of a general series, and there is nothing so special about this particular election in this particular year to justify having a seperate article. Articles should not exist merely because of editor whim. We eaither should have articles on every congressional election ever for every district, or keep the current pattern of articles on special elections and grouping. Considering there seems to be no actual will to create these by district articles for each election even in the ensuing years, I think we should delete these few outliers and instead concentrate on inrpving the quality of the articles we currently have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.