Talk:2023 Tucson mayoral election

Arizona Low‑importance

	Arizona portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arizona, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Arizona on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArizonaWikipedia:WikiProject ArizonaTemplate:WikiProject ArizonaArizona articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Reliable sources showing notability (October 2022)

Hi @Elli: you removed the notability tag although did not address the reason it was placed there. This is part of a talk page note I left for @BottleOfChocolateMilk following NPP: "There are not sufficient reliable sources in the article to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:EVENTCRIT. (There is no consensus on the reliability of Ballotpedia and that piece does not satisfy SIGCOV) WP:CRYSTAL indicates that articles about almost certain future events are allowed, but that does not mean they are excluded from the requirements to satisfy the GNG. Please add sufficient reliable sourcing to satisfy the GNG before removing the tag." I still do not see this page satisfying the criteria. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Goldsztajn: with election articles like this, generally either all of the relevant elections are notable or none of them are. Given that we have articles for elections going back to 1991 in Category:Mayoral elections in Tucson, Arizona, the status quo is that they are notable, and that this election is too. It's generally accepted that for notable elections, we can have an article on the upcoming election once we get relevant reliable sources, even if they aren't in-depth (for example, media reporting on candidate announcements), as obviously the event will happen and we will get more sources closer to when it will happen.

If you don't think that mayoral elections in Tucson are generally notable, I'd start a deletion or merge discussion for all the elections in Category:Mayoral elections in Tucson, Arizona (or you can do it yourself per WP:BOLD if you don't expect someone to dispute it). I previously did that with Mayoral elections in Overland Park, Kansas if you'd like to see an example article. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Elli - thanks for replying. Perhaps I should have been explicit, but I've deliberately not prodded this or taken it to AfD and you can perhaps take from that my implicit view. However, I do not think there is a community consensus around future elections in general (see for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 elections in India - where I argued keep, but there were quite strong sentiments expressed in opposition). While US elections are within specific, mandated cycles, I'm not sure there's a general consensus that future elections in the absence of reliable sourcing should be included. I think this particular article is borderline hence my initial tagging - yes, a city-wide position covering half a million people is noteworthy, but it's 13 months before the election with an absence of sufficient sourcing ... that being said, I'm not arguing for redirect or deletion. Just noting that the article should contain adequate sourcing, hence the tagging .... but if that takes another month or so... well, I'm not perturbed. :) Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 22:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no general clear project-wide consensus on this indeed, but I've been editing US elections for a while and this is my impression based off of how AfDs have tended to go. Agree the article should have better sourcing, but not sure how that particular cleanup tag helps (the issue is really that the sourcing probably doesn't exist quite yet, and that's not something our editors can fix). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from being a psephologist, but I've long had an interest in elections. I had initially tagged the article for event notability and in a purely technical sense this article has insufficient sourcing to satisfy the GNG ... I think there are editors who are very strong in their views about the early creation of articles and others who are less strict. I tend to base my views on a case by case basis. I think all three of us would agree on the outcome here, perhaps we interpret the method of getting there differently (tagged or not) but as I said happy to wait. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, totally get where you're coming from here :) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]