Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Des Moines mayoral 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 Draftify‎. Election is within six months and it can be improved while in Draft. Star Mississippi 02:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Des Moines mayoral election[edit]

[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 election is not WP:V and relies on WP:FUTURE way too much. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and it seems that this article has received very little news coverage from traditional media as is. Additionally, it had links to ActBlue as sources even though the website is clearly partisan and is being asked to be investigated by the Federal Election Commission.

The article has not established individual ANY notability or verifiability. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because it's WP:V that the election is on November 7, and has been covered in depth by the Des Moines Register, Axios, and all sorts of local affiliates[1][2] Poor article quality is not a reason for article deletion, and your FEC point is nonsensical. Googling it, I see Marco Rubio wants them investigated, but that's meaningless right-wing tripe. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good thing I didn't cite poor article quality and a I see that you took one point out of the nomination to make a political judgment on. Please let me know how this article is notable at all. The The Des Moines Register has a small circulation and is approximately 19% of the population. This election is only notable (if that) to a small group of people and not worthy of a standalone article. This is not covered in depth whatsoever, 4 sources are hardly "in-depth" at all. Additionally, no coverage in over a month. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would I point out more notable sources when you're trying to shoot down the paper of record for Iowa? You're acting like I found the only four sources that exist, and there aren't any others? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a local election of no importance. There are only four sources on the article. I would love to see more sources that prove notability and verifiability, however, I can't see any unless they are on the article. I mentioned the little circulation of the Register to mention that is largely a local paper that has little readership even in its own city. Why would you not want to provide a more reliable source? Grahaml35 (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is not notable in any sort of way and not worthy of a standalone article. This is not covered in depth whatsoever, 4 sources are hardly "in-depth" at all. Additionally, no coverage in over a month. The election is not WP:V and relies on WP:FUTURE way too much. Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS and it seems that this article has received very little news coverage from traditional media as is. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- You nominated this for deletion. That is your vote. This is null. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  I have seen numerous other nominators also add their vote in that way. My apologies. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:26, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify (although as I've said in other recent AfD's, reluctantly because I think local electoral coverage should be considered meeting SIGCOV as I argued in the AfD example here) per the consensus established at the 2023 Carmel mayoral deletion discussion. Per WP:EVENTCRIT, this election hasn't established national coverage or any kind of lasting effect from it, and it is a routine mayoral election. We won't know if it will reach that threshold until after the election is finished, and can be re-created if it does, but for now, it fails to meet the mark. Nomader (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify per Nomader. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:03, 30 April 2023 (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.