WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION MAYORAL ELECTIONS

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 Clusterfuck. This catastrophically huge nomination is so big that XfDcloser is having a seizure whilst trying to close it. No prejudice against speedy renomination individually or in smaller batches. As the removal of the AfD templates can't be done automatically by XfDcloser, I have asked the nominator to do it - no one else should have to spend their time cleaning up this mess. ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Mayoral elections

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

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chula Vista mayoral elections (an ongoing AfD), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Mesa mayoral election, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Fontana mayoral election; these are all non-notable elections that mainly show the results and nothing else. It might be better to merge some of this information to other articles. Wow ( talk) 20:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 20:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oklahoma City as major cities likely to have further coverage. Delete or Redirect others to List of mayors of Boise, Idaho, List of mayors of St. Petersburg, Florida, List of mayors of Spokane, San_Bernardino,_California#Mayors etc. Largely bulk-created using only primary source of results without discussion or significant coverage for notability; we are not Ballotpedia or OurCampaigns. Per WP:NOPAGE, can be covered in main articles/lists until separate page is warranted but data only does not justify standalone articles for small cities and suburbs with local-only news coverage. Reywas92^Talk 21:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep per WP:TRAINWRECK and WP:NOTCLEANUP. The nomination proposes merger not deletion and doesn't seem to have done any detailed work on the specifics of each case. Andrew🐉( talk) 21:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment Listing more articles to determine if they should be deleted, starting with Hartford. -- Wow ( talk) 22:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
- In other words, "we need a bigger trainwreck"? SecretName101 ( talk) 22:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
  - Good lord, you indeed made it even more of a trainwreck. SecretName101 ( talk) 22:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep This is a clusterfuck. I count 271 articles you nominated in one AfD, even though these cities are not the same. It's a TRAINWRECK. Nominate one city at a time. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Wow ( talk) 22:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply

Keep - Too many to properly evaluate. These weren't mass created and are sufficiently different that they need to be broken down a bit more (arbitrarily, maybe a limit of 10 per nom). If you think the article format itself is flawed, you may want to consider an WP:RFC instead, but it's almost certainly going to result in "handle on a case by case basis, with no presumption of notability". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:57, 16 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ( talk) 01:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep- Does not appear a sufficient Wikipedia:BEFORE has been conducted. Djflem ( talk) 02:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
This is the second instance of poor judgement being practiced by Wow relating to election articles this week. Creating this particularly jaw-dropping mess of a trainwreck comes right after Wow removed transparent images that were being used to regulate the width of candidates on the infoboxes of hundreds of election articles, accrediting these actions to what amounted to a GROSS misinterpretation of a centralized discussion. It was time consuming on my part to undue all of that. Wow, please practice due-diligence before undertaking actions that prove a massive waste of other users' valuable time. As was just stated, you practiced none of Wikipedia:BEFORE and also created massive trainwreck that, of course, was never going to result in anything productive. This is not how we undertake deletions. SecretName101 ( talk) 02:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural Keep -- While I would tend to agree with the nominator for a decent number of these articles, comparing Green Bay to Sacramento to South Bend is too much of a leap for me. -- Dolotta ( talk) 14:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Snow procedural keep It is unreasonable to expect a consensus out of such a granular-level nomination--one editor counted 271 nominations from multiple cities and jurisdictions. I appreciate the editor making a WP:BOLD nomination yet I hope that rather than piling more on to this one that a more controlled approach is taken. Heck, I might want to delete all of them... but in smaller, easier to manage bundles please.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural Keep due to ridiculously large number of articles nominated. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep Not a fan of these mass nominations. ~ EDDY ^{(
talk/
contribs)}~ 17:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Major issues with mass nominations aside--there are far too many articles included here to properly evaluate--most of these are for mayoral elections in major American cities, making them fairly notable. It may be worthwhile to consider consolidation by city, at least for some of the smaller ones (outside of the 125-150 largest?), but I see no need to delete, especially en masse. ALPolitico ( talk) 13:31, 19 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep. Too many articles to evaluate this properly. -- Kinu ^t/_c 07:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep There may be notable reasons to keep many (or some) of the articles. And, much of the content may be able to be merged into other articles. In general, though, I believe that mayoral campaigns, properly covered by reliable, independent news sources should have the presumption of notability by meeting WP:GNG. -- Enos733 ( talk) 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural Keep There are to many disparate articles of differing levels of quality and detail to be handled as a mass AfD. Some of these are reasonable candidates for deletion but many aren't. A more thorough review per WP:BEFORE and a split by city may be the best way to proceed. Alansohn ( talk) 20:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep. This is unreasonable, bordering on abusive. There's no way we as a community can debate this in any way. Nominate again the worst offenders, and let's go from there. FWIW, I would keep the Buffalo articles, so don't bother re-nominating them. Bearian ( talk) 03:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep. Some of these might be salvageable, some might not, but with this many articles batched at once there's no easy way to tell one way or the other. One city = one batch. Bearcat ( talk) 04:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment — There are also a ton of articles on gubernatorial elections which were created as substance-free WP:NOTSTATS violations and have remained that way. By dwelling on a particular office and not another, are we once again pushing an artificial pecking order? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep: It's impractical to assess several hundred articles together like this. Even spending a minute skimming over each article would take around 4 hours, non-stop. These need to be nominated individually or in much smaller groups that only cover one city each. Rubbish computer ( Talk: Contribs) 10:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep - WHOAAAAAAAAAAAA! JESUS CHRIST! Did you even check any of these, or are you just learning to bundle? 🌺Kori🌺 - ( @) 06:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Procedural keep Worth keeping procedurally, but also want to note most of these I would probably !vote keep on, if not merging them into a "Mayoral elections in Cityburg." It may actually be worth an RfC if you plan to nominate these individually, to determine where the line is. SportingFlyer T· C 20:45, 23 April 2020 (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.

Mayoral elections

Mayoral elections

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook