2017 Chattanooga mayoral election : The 2023 election is not WP:N .  This election does not seem notable unlike the 2021 election.  After searches there is non regular coverage and certainly no WP:SIGCOV .  Simply does not pass WP:GNG .  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:26, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep It is very important to have local elections on this platform.  The sources are notable are and credible, and nothing seems to be exaggerated.  We already have many election pages on this platform, but it is also important for others to see how elections play out in our major cities.  If we have years' worth of mayoral election pages for cities like Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, and even Mableton, Georgia, there is no reason to delete the mayoral election for Chattanooga.  TNpolls ( talk ) 20:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:Other stuff exists .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions .  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep I have found notable sources and will update this article very shortly.  I have already started to work on it and it will be completed tonight GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 18:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Completed article.  It should now pass WP:GNG GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 19:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is interesting for people who like politics and is a good way to consolidate sources about a local election.  If you don’t care about this topic, don’t edit the article, but there is no need to delete it.  asi1998 ( talk ) 19:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep the article, there's plenty of sources for the election.  Jimbo218 ( talk ) 21:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I completely understand and enjoy politics greatly.  A majority of my edits on Wiki are on the topic of politics.  However, I believe this falls under WP:NOTNEWS , in addition to what I previously mentioned.  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 21:08, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] You should recheck the article , the article was sent to deletion only 2 minutes after it was published.  But since then I have completed the article, and put numerous sources.  Also the main candidate that won is in the Biden Administration ( Andy Berke ), so the article has some notability GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 21:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep This is an informative article with several reliable sources. -- Fan Of Volunteer Politics ( talk ) 22:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC) — Fan of Volunteer Politics ( talk • contribs ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  JM ( talk ) 09:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Since the creation of this deletion discussion, the author has cited several reliable sources establishing the subject's notability.  This is a good article William on Tires ( talk ) 22:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The difference between the 2021 election page, and this one, is simply a different creator, and four years of format changes/enhancements.  That in and of itself does not make 2017 any less important or any less accurate.  — Maile ( talk ) 22:20, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep Who decides what's "notable"?  Are we low on article space?  This is a city of nearly 200K.  Cole Dalton ( talk ) 22:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The Wiki standards set in place...  WP:N Grahaml35 ( talk ) 16:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment : Blatant WP:Canvassing [78] .  Curbon7 ( talk ) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Who canvasses seven years after an event is over?  The election happened in 2017, and the article was written in 2024.  — Maile ( talk ) 16:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, but for full clarity in case it is the latter: here canvassing refers to notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate.  This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior .  Posting on Twitter "everyone vote keep for this article" is blatant canvassing.  Curbon7 ( talk ) 20:35, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So are you saying my nomination for deletion is WP:Canvassing ?  Grahaml35 ( talk ) 15:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] No, they're saying Posting on Twitter "everyone vote keep for this article" is blatant canvassing .  JM ( talk ) 09:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep The more info the better, if anything more cities should be considered "notable" 199.254.158.195 ( talk ) 00:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:EVERYTHING JM ( talk ) 09:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : It's a chart and a few lines of text, I'd expect to see some sort of discussion about the candidates or events that happened during the campaign.  I can't see why this election was notable, other than having happened, I don't see GNG.  Oaktree b ( talk ) 00:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] There are two paragraphs of text in there, if you would like, I could add a campaign background tab, But this has more text than the 2021 one GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 01:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Also it is notable given the candidate that won is in the Biden Administration.  Also has numerous sources GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 01:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:NOTINHERITED JM ( talk ) 09:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Go check yourself GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Did you even read what I linked?  I don't have to check anything, because it doesn't matter whether or not he's a federal official now, the point is that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from other subjects.  This election isn't notable just because one of the candidates went on to become a federal official.  Things aren't notable just because someone involved in them later goes on to become a federal official.  JM ( talk ) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] For stating an opinion to an article, it is best to look at it.  I know it doesn't matter that he's in federal official now, the election was well covered and has numerous media attention GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 15:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I'm not expressing an opinion on the article; keep in mind that I haven't even ! voted one way or the other, I just saw an argument based on notability inheritance and had to point out that notability is not inherited.  I have no opinion on the article itself or whether or not it is notable without inheritance.  JM ( talk ) 22:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete on WP:NOTNEWS grounds - a local event with no lasting significance and no coverage outside the local area, which is usually what we have required in the past IIRC.  SportingFlyer T · C 11:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Executive election of a city of more than 200,000 people.  Well covered in the media.  GNG pass and passes the smell test as an encyclopedic topic.  Carrite ( talk ) 03:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Relisting since many keep ! votes are not rooted in our policies/guidelines and have apparently been canvassed.  Is there any coverage suggesting widespread or long-term impact?  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 05:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge I think all the Chattanooga mayoral articles should be merged.  Just like Mayoral elections in Clarksville, Tennessee Mayoral elections in Murfreesboro, Tennessee Mayoral elections in Knoxville GatewayPolitics ( talk ) 18:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge to a list as we tend to do for mayoral elections in mid-sized American cities; there doesn't seem to be anything especially noteworthy about this one that makes keeping a separate page necessary.  Would rather keep than delete if it comes to that, though.  Elli ( talk | contribs ) 17:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment I do not think the closer's comment for relisting is appropriate.  The only question is whether there is appropriate coverage about the election, that is does the election meet GNG.  There is no requirement, although it may be helpful, for a stand-alone election for a strong mayor to be widespread or have long-term significance (although at least one keep vote did suggest the mayor who was elected would become a member of the Biden administration).  I also do not think WP:NOTNEWS applies.  NOTNEWS is usually for routine events.  A municipal election for mayor of a decent sized city may not make the candidates eligible for a stand-alone article, but the level of coverage of the electoral contest may be enough for stand-alone article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enos733 ( talk • contribs ) 28 January 2024 (UTC) 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.

Discussion outcome: delete