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 Draftify. And yes, saying up front that this was not an explicit !vote made in the discussion, however I believe it makes sense as an outcome for several reasons. Consensus is against keeping this in mainspace at this time. Among those arguing for a deletion is that there is no evidence as of yet that this election is notable. They do not appear to be saying it could never be notable, just that it is unlikely given the factors that relate to mayoral notability. Those arguing for retention show sourcing that could eventually pass EVENTCRIT when the election happens. While that is not exactly within six months, it's a reasonable timeline and we have editors interested in working on the article. If the coverage does not eventuate, this can be handled va G13 and or/MFD. Star Mississippi 16:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Carmel mayoral election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Election is of negligible importance.

Carmel is as suburban city. It is a secondary city in its metropolitan area, being a satellite to Indianapolis. Therefore, its mayoralty is of this city is not as consequential a position as a number of cities of similar size in Indiana, as those cities are the primary political and population centers of their metropolitan areas. Carmel is an oversized suburb, in effect. Its population is a result of its massive 49 square miles of area (which is more than sixteen square miles more than the size of Manhattan Island and comes close to the area size of the entirety of Boston). If it were subdivided into separate cities the area size of a standard suburb, none would be of substantial population. Carmel has the very low population density of 2,032.3/sq mi. Countless satellite cities and suburbs with substantially greater population density and importance than Carmel, such as Evanston Illinois (population density 10,041.14 per square mile and home to the prestigious Northwestern University) for instance, do not have separate articles providing coverage of its mayoral election, nor should they.

There is no individual notability established for this election. And it should be clear that Carmel lacks the importance or noteworthiness for its elections to automatically warrant coverage on this projects.

If the victor (or any candidates) become of enough notability to garner their own article, the election could be easily summarized as a section in their biographical article. If no candidates become notable enough, then that will be all the more reason why an article on the election would not be justified. This project does not need an entire article dedicated to a non-noteworthy election contested by non-noteworthy candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, United States of America, and Indiana. SecretName101 (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Your point regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article. To put it into perspective other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Additionally, Evanston can be a skewed number because of Northwestern as you pointed out as college students who do not live there full time can inflate the numbers. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has Mayoral elections in South Bend, Indiana. Would you prefer something like that for Carmel instead?

The notability of this election stems from the fact that Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana and has a incumbent mayor who has been in office from 1996 retiring. Now the fact that it is the 5th most populated city in Indiana does not inherit notability in of itself. However, the race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources, an endorsement from someone who held a statewide office. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 I was framing/illustrating how Carmel is, in effect, a large suburb and not a conventional city.

South Bend, as was noted about other Indiana cities of similar size with article, is the center of its own metro area (South Bend–Mishawaka metropolitan area), is a county seat, etc. It was also, formally, a major manufacturing community in the automotive industry. And even then, only three mayoral races related to a nationally prominent-politician have separate article coverage. The remainder are condenced into a joint article aimed at compiling summaries of all mayoral elections in the city's history SecretName101 (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• An article of mayoral election history would not be warranted for Carmel. Carmel is a suburb that recently experienced a gain of population. Immense population growth in only a few decades. It has never been a major city center, however. South Bend, on the other hand, is city center of some historical and current stature. They are very different cases. South Bend had a population of over 100,000 as far back as the 1930s, when there were less than 100 US cities to exceed 100,000 in population. This garnered its elections going back decades some level of noteworthiness. Carmel doesn't come close to having any actual history of noteworthy elections.

Election history going back to 1995 would be more appropriately be summarized within James Brainard's own article. Election history before him is of next to no importance anyways. Current election has not been established as notable.SecretName101 (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The article should stay for many different reasons. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion the regarding of Carmel's population density is of little importance and has no bearing on the article as other mayoral elections that have Wiki articles such as Wichita & Tucson have population densities of 2,454.05/sq mi and 2,251.44/sq mi. Carmel's population numbers are nearly identical to South Bend, Indiana which has mayoral elections articles.

1. Notability factors of this article include:
   1. Carmel is 5th most populated city in Indiana
   2. The retiring incumbent mayor was first elected when Clinton was in office.
   3. Race has garnered attention from major Indianapolis sources - The Indianapolis Star, FOX59, Indianapolis Business Journal
   4. Endorsement from someone who held a statewide office
   5. One candidate has over 500K cash on hand which is more than some Indianapolis mayoral candidates^[1]
   6. Had a live in person debate that was live streamed

These are just some factors that provide notability. These all provided by trustworthy sources. Not to mention the primary election is still over a month away. (Edit to include "Strong Keep") Grahaml35 (talk) 03:36, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• None of these indicate that the election is particularly notable.

1) Does not establish inherent importance for Carmel elections, as I've highlighted extensively already

2) Plenty of small municipalities have had similarly long-tenured mayors, and those too do not warrant enough notability for articles

3) Local news coverage is almost never enough to establish notability. Particularly with elections. It is beyond routine and expected for a local news outlet to cover elections in the region. Pretty much any suburb's election would meet the criteria you claim here.

4) Does not establish notability either. Also, not all that remarkable. The last mayoral election in Evanston, Illinois (for example) saw the governor of Illinois issue an endorsement.

5) That's a ridiculous amount of money for a candidate to have in this election. Don't see how that raises notability though

6) This is also super routine of elections small and large. Most universities even do this for student body president elections.

SecretName101 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not if it was just one of them, however, the six together plus the quality coverage the article has received would qualify it to be. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an average suburban election of little to no interest to anyone outside of Carmel or the Indianapolis metro; Carmel is a major city in the area, but ultimately this is an average mayoral election. Nate • (chatter) 21:54, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• To be fair, many municipal elections this year have little to no interest to many people. I've checked other 2023 United States mayoral elections articles and this article has more trustworthy sources and/or has better coverage than Boise, Aurora, Arlington, Des Moines, Kansas City, Portland, Maine, and Savannah. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In fact, some are these articles have sources of ActBlue donate pages which is clearly not a reliable source. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep (really the strongest possible): Candidly, I'm absolutely flabbergasted by this nomination. Why on earth would it matter if *we* find a subject boring if it receives significant news coverage? I suppose because it's a *suburban* city of only 105,928 *suburban* people that it shouldn't qualify (which I should add to the above comments, is now larger than South Bend according to 2023 population estimates)? I feel like previous Carmel elections didn't meet the WP:GNG standard because James Brainard has been Mayor *since 1996* and there isn't much interest from news sources in covering it. On the other hand, this article clearly and easily meets WP:GNG. Sources include:
  • Republican Mayoral debate analysis from the Indy Star and from the Indiana Business Journal
  • Coverage on the Dem running from the Indy Star
  • Horse race coverage from the Monterey Herald
  • Article about the current mayor deciding not to run (after being in office since 1996!! Not average at all!)
  • The Times of Noblesville reporting on a surprise 4th contender
  • FOX station saying the Mayor isn't running again
  • Indy Star article about the 2019 primary loser running again

If an article receives significant coverage from reliable sources (which the Indy Star and these other papers clearly are), it should have an article. This should clearly have one. I've searched far and wide for any kind of notability standard that limits election coverage based on the size of the election and have found none-- if it's widely covered and meets WP:GNG, then it should clearly be kept. Nomader (talk) 05:12, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It’s not a major political center, and its governance doesn’t tend to be of major significance is what is meant. This is regional coverage. Regional coverage occurs with any election.

It’s effectively a suburb that annexed a lot of surrounding suburbs. An overgrown suburb. Not a true urban city center of major note. As a result, it does not have automatic notability. As was covered, South Bend is the primary city of its metro area and has long been a population center of note. carmel is a secondary settlement in its metro area that only recently grew as a result of suburban sprawl. There's not comprability, plus WP:Other Stuff is not a sufficient rationale SecretName101 (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you mentioned in a later comment that is purely your opinion. Additionally, any election does not receive regional coverage, especially to this extent. As I’ve mentioned the amount of coverage, this race has received with still a month to go until the primary election deems this notable. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not my rationale -- WP:GNG is. Frankly Carmel now *is* a more urban center of note than South Bend, which you brought up before. I'm a bit flabbergasted to be honest with you by your opinion here to be honest. Should we delete Portland, Maine mayoral election pages because arguably, it only has 60k people in it and it's part of the greater Boston metro area? I'm not arguing that *every* Carmel, Indiana election is notable. Far from it-- the previous one clearly wasn't (I was able to summarize it in two sentences). But this one, the first open election in a city of more than 100k people in nearly 30 years, and your approach towards "suburban" cities feels odd, candidly. Nomader (talk) 03:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader For your Portland question: kinda yeah. Honestly, Portland Maine's mayoral elections should be combined into a single summarizing article rather than given their own articles. It is incredibly unjustified for them all to have separate articles. It's on my to-do list of cities to move from having separate articles for individual elections to a combined article amalgamating those. So, thank you for reminding me.

So, yeah, kinda should

However, this is a poor comparison regardless.

Portland, Maine is a very different city than Carmel. It is the primary population center of its metro area, a county seat, as well as the largest city in its entire city, garnering it political influence and consequence. What happens in Portland can often be significant to all of Maine. Are Carmel's politics really significant on a broader populace than its own citizenry? I see no evidence of that.

Additionally Portland is home to industries and of long-established economic importance/influence. It is the economic capitol of its entire state. Carmel certainly is not.

Portland, while itself small, is the primary population center of a metropolitan area in excess of half-a-million residents. The metro area that it anchors have notable economic and political consequence.

Portland is a long-established location of note and statewide/interstate regional consequence. On the otherhand, when popstar Britney Spears was born, Carmel was a suburb that was not even cracking 20,000 in population.

I hope this helps shed some light and un-flabbergast you a bit. SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Also, Portland was another (and very weak) other stuff argument that ignored:

1) the significant differences between the two cities in favor of looking at mere population (which is not an inherent signifier of political consequence, as some other deletion discussions on this project have settled)

2) The possibility (and, indeed, reality) that Portland Maine's too should not warrant individual articles for each of its mayoral elections (Portland should have a combined article, but Carmel does not warrant one, as I have noted earlier)

Also a similar other stuff argument that ignores similar differences (which I have laid out before): Your comparison to South Bend. SecretName101 (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on Carmel not warranting a combined article. I don't think that 7 election cycles worth of coverage "Mayor Jim Brainard won re-election handily again" would be anything other than routine. Carmel also had a population of 10,000 just 50 years ago, and a small town mayoral election certainly wouldn't merit any kind of coverage like this current one is getting. I'm more saying that specifically, this election should be construed as notable. (Looking at the consensus building here though, I doubt that's what is coming through to folks).

Also, I want to apologize for my bitey tone before, it was unbecoming. I was more put off by your deep aversion towards suburban cities that you were repeatedly emphasizing -- I think suburban city elections *can* be notable (and I still think that this particular one is), but I understand the point that you're trying to make. If you have a to do list somewhere in your userpage, would be happy to help you tackle some of these broader mayoral election notes that you're working on (and would be happy to move this discussion to User talk because it's probably not germane to this deletion discussion). Nomader (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My reason for arguing that politics of most suburban cities are generally not notable is because (by the very basis of being suburban) such cities are not the a main center of their metro area. Their politics generally stay within their boundaries. Whereas, the main population/downtown centers of metro areas usually drive the politics and economic of their regions in major ways. Suburbs are, by their nature, tertiary communities within their metro area. Therefore, their politics is not usually even all that impactful upon even the rest of their metro area, let alone of note to individuals outside of those immediate environs. Obviously, it matters to those who live within the suburban city, whose schools and parks are impacted by the local elections. But that sort of coverage not what Wikipedia's goals are. SecretName101 (talk) 08:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cities like Carmel, as I was saying initially, are pretty much what happens if you draw bigger boundaries when dividing suburbia. That is all. That's why I call it an oversized suburb.

I'll pose an illustration. Let's look at the Northern Chicago suburbs. If Niles, Skokie, Lincolnwood, Morton Grove, Park Ridge, and Evanston all merged/consolidated into one government they'd have a population 223,504. Sizable, right? (and mind you, that population would be in a space under 40 sq miles, I believe, which is a significantly smaller than Carmel occupies).

Would the hypothetical this single government make the hypothetical merged area more notable in politics/economics than they are now? I don't imagine it really would all that much. And would that suburban city rival any other city of its size in importance? Not at all. Certainly wouldn't remotely rival the importance even of much smaller cities like, say, Salt Lake City; Hartford, Connecticut; or Providence, Rhode Island. Those cities are important centers. This hypothetical suburban city would still just as much be a swath of suburban space as it currently is. The only change would be a unified management of government resources. Being over 200,000 in population under a single government wouldn't suddenly make that land more important than it currently is.

Does that make better sense of what I was trying to say earlier?

Also, its s actually kind of insulting to countless other suburban areas of similar makeup to say that Carmel is far more important than they are because it happens to have a single government for a large suburban area while the other similar suburban areas are divided into more conventionally-sized suburbs. And we certainly don't have the manpower nor subject area to begin covering all suburbs. That is why the importance of a city should be appraised on more than just population alone.

SecretName101 (talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Also, thank you immensely for apologizing for taking a more aggressive tone. I appreciate that greatly. SecretName101 (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have substantially improved the article using reliable sources. Per WP:HEY, pinging @SecretName101:, @Grahaml35:, @MrSchimpf: to see if this improvement is substantial enough or changes any views on it. Nomader (talk) 19:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nomader The issue is not related to reliability of the information so much as the notability of the topic itself. from a cursory look at the reliability, I trust you did a good job there.

  It is not a notable election, in my opinion. SecretName101 (talk) 19:17, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess what I'm wondering is -- why is the topic itself not considered a notable election? Per the general notability guideline, a topic is "presumed" to be notable when it has significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Does this not meet that criterion? (And also, adding this in late, but thank you for saying that too.) Nomader (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nomader This does not have sufficient coverage, for starters. It has nothing going beyond routine local coverage. SecretName101 (talk) 01:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nomader. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)<noinclu*de>[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NEVENT when looking at specific criteria at WP:EVENTCRIT. The sources have not demonstrated enduring historical significance as required in criteria 1. Per WP:PERSISTENCE events need to show sustained coverage across time; and all of the sources here are within a very short window of time. Likewise, the source are all local and have not demonstrated the event meets " widespread (national or international) impact" as required in criteria 2 of EVENTCRIT. Further, as a political event that is routinely covered in local news, the topic must demonstrate sources outside of local news coverage to prove notability per criterias 3 and 4 of EVENTCRIT and WP:GEOSCOPE; something that has not been demonstrated with the sources in the article or this AFD. Lastly, some of the sources are simply mirrors of each other or produced by the same media conglomerate, and overall there could be a greater diversity of sources per WP:DIVERSE. 4meter4 (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair points, thanks for making them. I'd argue that for the WP:DIVERSE piece of this, it isn't difficult to pull sources from outside the Indy Star, but that's more of a reflection of me quickly pulling up sources for this AfD to improve the article. I'd also argue that WP:EVENTCRIT makes it clear that criteria 2 only means that a subject is very likely to be notable and isn't a requirement to meet, and that the background information (and the longer-term coverage about whether the Mayor was going to retire or not) indicates that this election meets the duration of coverage requirement in WP:PERSISTENCE. Previous Carmel elections likely won't meet the threshold and I highly doubt that future ones will, but I think that this one does. Nomader (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t agree with that assessment. PERSISTENCE requires continued coverage AFTER the event (“enduring historical significance”) which is not what we see here. Further, the speculative reporting on the mayor’s potential retirement beforehand is only tangentially related to the election itself, and isn’t significant coverage of the actual election as an event. Further, we would need to see national or international media coverage to pass EVENTCRIT; sources only within state of Indiana do not meet that threshold. In my opinion not enough time has elapsed since the passing of the election (well actually it hasn’t happened yet) to accurately judge whether this topic is notable because it is simply WP:TOOSOON. We need time for journalists and academics to publish literature on the election in retrospect. If they don’t, then the election shouldn’t have an article. If they do then we should create one, but not before. 4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You would be hard-pressed to find any national or international media coverage on any mayoral elections in 2023 other than the Chicago mayoral election. Additionally, national or international coverage is not a requirement. Grahaml35 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 that is not true. Philadelphia and other elections are garnering coverage too.

What you are effectively saying is "you'd be hard pressed to find national or international media coverage of any elections except those with significant notability". Which is the whole point. This election lacks that. SecretName101 (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I missed Philly. However, Akron, Arlington, Aurora, Boise, Colorado Springs, Columbus, Denver, Des Moines, Fort Worth, Green Bay, Hartford, Houston, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Knoxville, Lincoln, Manchester, Memphis, Nashville, Portland, Pueblo, Salt Lake City, San Antonio, Savannah, South Bend, Spokane, Tampa, Tucson, and Wichita all do not. 30/34 do not for those counting. I firmly believe a lot of those deserve to be deleted before this article. Some articles are pathetic in their lack of information and sources. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually another thing that I was thinking about -- there was an absolutely disgusting trainwreck mayoral elections nomination in 2020 that nominated hundreds of articles, that would probably be worth evaluating in detail for sources. If this is where we decide to draw the line in the sand (which to be clear, I am arguing that we definitely shouldn't be as I think it passes the EVENTCRIT guideline 4meter4 brought up above and passes GNG), there should be a slew of nominations to follow-up to this. Nomader (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Nomader Worth noting that a bulk of articles nominated in that past bulk deletion nomination have since (largely by me) been merged into single summary articles on mayoral elections in their parent city. And most others that were nominated in that are on my to-do list for the same treatment. SecretName101 (talk) 03:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good flag, thanks for pointing that out (and for your work on it). I might start digging in depending on how this AfD closes. Nomader (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair points. Although I stand by what I said above, I can definitely see how you can come to a different conclusion here as well (thanks for articulating your perspective here so well). I believe that Brainard's national media stature on his approach to roundabouts (which is weirdly high for such an oddball topic, including The Economist, WaPo (which refers to him as basically a "monarch"), USA Today, NYT) means that there should be a plethora of coverage once the election occurs about both his retirement and his replacement. I'd ask that if this is deleted (which I don't think that it should to be clear), that it be sent into draft space or userfy'd so if sources pop after the election is concluded, we can easily bring this back and not lose all of the work here. Nomader (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is about a local election to be held in the future, of routine context and uncertain notability, at best. Perhaps, come November, something would bestow upon this event enough fame, for some reason or other. But, we have no way of knowing that! The sources invoked are nothing more than routine local reportage about a local election without any trace of wider significance; there are literally thousands of reports like this every day. Yes, we could have all of them here, but, let it be noted, Wikipedia is not a collection of haphazard information, not a directory, and certainly not a newspaper.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Gnome (talk • contribs) 09:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies for the omission. -The Gnome (talk) 12:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would like to see the thousands of reports or even a similar number of sources to those on this article for the larger population cities of Brandon, Florida, Palm Bay, Florida, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and/or Erie, Pennsylvania. You can't do it because they do not exist. I know Wiki is WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTGOSSIP, WP:RUMOUR, and WP:NOTCATALOG. I am not implying or stating that is. None of this coverage is routine. Search information for the Carmel 2019 election - there is practically none because it wasn't notable. However, 2023 is. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment:

I will offer further evidence that the mayoralty of cities like Carmel are generally not noteworthy enough to garner heavy coverage on this project. Cities that are not a central center of their metro area often just don't have mayoralties of inherent notability. One should look to the fact that this project does not afford many similar cities' current mayors articles of their own. Many mayors of Tempe, Arizona do not have articles. The current mayors of Chula Vista, California; Scottsdale, Arizona; Chandler, Arizona; Peoria, Arizona; Surprise, Arizona; Anaheim, California; North Las Vegas, Nevada; Irving, Texas; Santa Clarita, California; Frisco, Texas; Sparks, Nevada; Everett, Washington; Langley, British Columbia (district municipality); Henderson, Nevada; Arlington, Texas; Santa Ana, California all lack an article of their own. All of these cities are more populous than Carmel. Other cities that are close in populous to Carmel where this is the case include Pickering, Ontario.

Side note; @Grahaml35: I know its upsetting that one of your first original articles might be deleted for lacking notability. But it's better you learn now how to figure out notability than spend substantial time on a large number of non-notable elections only to see them later all get deleted for this same reason. Perhaps, if the the mayor elected after this obtains noteworthiness themselves some of the content/code here could be repurposed in a section of the article detailing their campaign/election. Reminder though, though: I don't think notability will come automatically for the next mayor upon their election. In my opinion, being mayor of Carmel is not an influential or particularly noteworthy thing itself unless you do something that itself is significantly noteworthy while in office). SecretName101 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... It is had to communicate with you on this as you seem to have blinders on to any information communicated by myself or any other contributor on this page. I never implied or said "notability will come automatically for the next mayor upon their election". You purely and continue to use your opinion to impose on this article and ignore many many many sources on this page. Per your page and your continuous defense of it, you seem to very interested in South Bend; which other contributors suggest that Carmel has become more noteworthy than South Bend you should possibly stop comparing the two. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 You have misread what I said. I never claimed you had said that notability will come automatically for the next mayor. I am only cautioning you not to publish an article on the next mayor too early if you consider doing that in the future.

You seem to be adopting an aggressive tone in this reply, which is disheartening as my ping to you was actually an attempt to reach out and reassure you not to let the potential deletion upset you. It was a friendly gesture that you seem to be greeting with an offense.

You and Nomader also are the only editors in this deletion discussion that has argued that Carmel is more noteworthy than South Bend. I'm genuinely curious whether these "other contributors" making that suggestion are buried?

Ironically, YOU perhaps "seem to have blinders on to any information communicated by myself or any other contributor on this page" since I have many times here drawn a clear distinction between communities such as South Bend (long sizable population center; has been home to notable industry garnering it economic significance; center of its own metropolitan area therefore of greater political consequence) and Carmel (overgrown suburb that is a tertiary population center in its metro area, only recently garnered a sizable population, and of negligible established political consequence beyond of its own populace). Please re-read this section if you missed the vast number of times I have outlined that distinction.

Best regards, and hope you'll reconsider what seems to be a somewhat aggressive tact to someone simply reaching out a hand to you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize for my snippy tone. It was hard to understand with your intention previous comment. Grahaml35 (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. All this talk about the elections in other cities is not helpful and is throwing this AFD off track. This is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFF argument which we do not consider valid at AFD. We don't need to analyze similar cities because we evaluate AFDs on individual cases. The main issue here is the sourcing isn't strong enough to pass WP:EVENTCRIT with this particular election. Wikipedia is a lagging indicator of notability, and it is very possible that once the election has passed the sourcing to prove EVENTCRIT will materialize. In which case this article was created WP:TOOSOON. In the mean time, we are not a news service or a crystal ball, and we shouldn't be writing on individual future events until they meet the threshold of WP:EVENTCRIT policy.4meter4 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A quote from the IndyStar describes how important and notable this elections. Here is a quote "There's one thing that's clear — Carmel voters will make a choice for mayor with real impact on the city's direction." I will work into the article today. ^[1] Grahaml35 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is anything more than stating the obvious; a new mayor in any city is going to do that. WP:EVENTCRIT criteria 2 requires "widespread (national or international) impact". Demonstrating local impact doesn't confer notability under the guideline's language.4meter4 (talk) 14:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a requirement. That is a guideline and tool to easily identify if an article is notable. However, it WP:EVENTCRIT states national or global reporting is preferred it does NOT it is a requirement for an article to be notable. Additionally, The Indianapolis Star is not a little local paper. It is a statewide paper and has the largest circulation in the state. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Grahaml35 Indianapolis Star is an Indianapolis-based paper. Its coverage of suburban Indy elections is as local as the Chicago Tribune's coverage suburban Chicago elections is local (that's to say that it 100% is local coverage). SecretName101 (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2023 (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.