Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election
there is zero explanation in the nom for how this fails GNG; there is plainly significant coverage in the article itself that requires no OR to extract the content from the sources. There is also opportunity for expansion, as the race had a lasting impact (see, e.g., https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17448689.2020.1717151 this for a description of its impact on Keystone XL activism and https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/emlj57&div=36&id=&page= this commentary on the legal ramifications of the robocalls -- although these don't establish notability IMO, they do indicate a need for a separate article). The delete and merge arguments are unconvincing; that the parent article is "allowed" to have prose isn't a reason to delete this one, a misreading of  is not a reason to delete (a misreading because passing GNG obviously means that it is not trivial, "run-of-the-mill", "exempt from newsworthiness"—much less entirely based around "planned coverage", since the robocalls etc were not planned coverage...), and that there could be more articles is obviously not a reason to delete this one. And even if the fact that the results were "typical for the average Nebraska's 3rd district election" is a reason to delete (it's not), they were not typical. And that the article could use work is not a reason to delete
— User:Urve, 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ROUTINE (Wikipedia:Notability)