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. Ultimately those advocating keep did not establish a policy/guideline based reason for this to be kept (the closest is WP:POLOUTCOMES which is an explanatory supplement not a policy or guideline itself and which, even so, does not cover this topic). Barkeep49 (talk) 04:55, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Mesa mayoral election[edit]

2004 Mesa mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

De-PRODd because "Mesa is the 35th largest city in the United States". That is true, but that doesn't make their mayoral elections notable. Mesa is still a suburb of Phoenix. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Data could be merged to List of mayors of Mesa, Arizona. Lack of coverage outside the local area establishing notability. 2008 Mesa mayoral election can go too; its sole non-results-data coverage is a list with "neighboring communities". Reywas92^Talk 23:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, or merge with the list of mayors of Mesa. The elected mayor has no article and all the other candidates are presumably non-notable, so the article is only of local interest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the fact that the mayor doesn't have an article is irrelevant. The mayor of a city of over half a million people is virtually always considered notable (not to mention other city politicians of that level of population, e.g. councilmen). See mayors of places like Sacramento, California (as well as several councilmen), Atlanta, Georgia, Kansas City, Missouri, Colorado Springs, Colorado, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Chula Vista, California (which is a suburb of San Diego), North Las Vegas, Nevada (another suburb), Huntington Beach, California (although not every mayor by any means), Paterson, New Jersey, and Green Bay, Wisconsin. It seems to be that mayors of cities greater than 100,000 are almost always considered notable. Extrapolating that, elections regarding notable figures should also be considered notable.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Onel5969, the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean this should. Notability is based on sources, not population. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wasn't making an OSE argument, although I understand how it could be construed that way. I was making an WP:POLOUTCOMES argument, and since that covers politicians, and not elections, extrapolating that to elections.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the population of Mesa makes this article notable enough, the fact that the mayor doesn't have an article is irrelevant.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Iamreallygoodatcheckers, what about the lack of sources? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Muboshgu, WP:ARTN states that lack of content or referencing does not diminish the articles notability - Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Iamreallygoodatcheckers, that's not the case if there isn't significant coverage required for GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Muboshgu, considering this was a mayoral election for such a large city in can be presumed under WP:NEXIST that there are other sources that could be added to the article, I'm sure this was covered under local and state news sources, and maybe even mentioned in national sources.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If some ambitious editor can put some reliable sources in here I would be inclined to keep. Having met GNG. I am not the one to do it however. But I will watchlist. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A presumption of notability (not just population) concerning Wikipedia:NEXIST is that sources exist just are not on the article. Someone else could argue to prove it but the bottom line is sourcing is required when or if something is contested. I would find it hard to receive arguments that AFD is not such a contesting. Primary sources do not advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning toward delete - I figure only major cities should have mayoral election articles - .... but there's also 2019 South Bend, Indiana mayoral election, 2019 Cary, North Carolina mayoral election, etc. (along with other years). South Bend and Cary, have much fewer residents than Mesa, so does that mean their election articles should be deleted too? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've already discussed my opinion above, even though there is a lack of sourcing does that really diminish the notability? Since this was in 2004 the sources may be difficult to find. For example, the 1860 United States presidential election in Michigan only has one primary source, and with a quick google search I couldn't find many more. However, that article is still notable enough to not be deleted. A lot of the sources may be difficult to find because of this was event occurred 15 years ago. We really need to take in account that major cities like Mesa are notable enough for there mayoral elections to be kept. Clarityfiend above has already explained that there are smaller cities that have there mayoral elections as articles.Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2019 (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.