Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maryland gubernatorial election, 1998

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. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 03:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maryland gubernatorial election, 1998

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

This article was created 4 months ago, and the only work done so far has been tagging for sources and category adding. It is entirely unsourced, so all of this information may not even be true. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 06:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The vote counts are accurate – see this table. No opinion on notability. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A state wide election is generally considered a clearly notable event. Basic description and DoctorKubla's ref added to article so it's not just an infobox. Improve the article, not delete it. -- KTC (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. KTC (talk) 10:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A perfectly good stub in a well-recognized as notable set of articles. Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's part of a well-established series of articles and we don't delete stubs just for being stubs, anyway. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Elections are almost always notable. This page is a perfectly good stub. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A state election is highly notable. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 21:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rightly or wrongly, "the article doesn't have sources in it" is generally not an argument for deletion, only "there are no sources for the article". For a state gubernatorial election, it's implausible to think that said sources don't exist. --j⚛e decker ^talk 21:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SNOW KEEP AND CLOSE This is about a gubernatorial election. What could be more noteworthy? I find it very difficult to believe that this is a good faith nomination, but just in case it was, I would strongly implore the nominator to read Wikipedia policies, and then request a withdrawal of this nomination. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:46, 5 December 2012 (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.