Deletion of Al Weed (2nd nomination)

Comment: The text you cite, at , amounts to saying that loss of information isn't an issue when the information isn't actually lost.  In the case at hand, I explained why the information ''would'' be lost.  I don't accept your sweeping generalization about election coverage.  We have huge amounts of election coverage -- not just ''Bush v. Gore'' and other recent aspects, but older ones like United States presidential election, 1860, elections below the level of President like Virginia United States Senate election, 2006, and even some Congressional elections like Ohio's 2nd congressional district election, 2006.  My opinion is that we don't have enough information about the Virginia 5th District in 2006 to necessitate such a separate article, because it can be accommodated in the articles about the candidates.  One way or the other, it should be possible for a reader 50 years from now to come to Wikipedia for this kind of historical information about an election
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOSE)

Comment: Meets  and notability guidelines as explained by W.marsh
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO)

Comment: See . Election coverage is for Wikinews, not an encyclopedia
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOSE)