Wikipedia talk:Notability (events)

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

Quick opinion on this pageant

Moved to WP:VPM

Inclusion criteria and Lasting effects dilemma

Hey all, I am in dilemma reading Inclusion criteria and Lasting effects and it feels like my brain doing a lil gymnastics. The Inclusion criteria rules says: Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, which means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover or the total amount of content. However, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information or a news service. Lasting effect rule says: Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. So I just wondering does the rules only apply for page to exist in first place or does it also applies to the information we include within the page itself? Like should we be cautious about adding information more like breaking news or short-term developments without lasting coverage or significance? NicoR8 (talk) 12:28, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Notability is specific to whether a stand-alone article should exist. In fact, when there are articles that fail LASTING, keeping some of the content but merging it into another page is sometimes the ideal solution. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Future Elections

Recently I had a disagreement with @~2026-31203-69 about 2031 Baden-Württemberg state election. I forget how I got there. I observed that it has one reference, which is not secondary, and that most of the content does not relate directly to the subject, but will be background information once the election happens.

So I converted it to a redirect, citing WP:TOOSOON.

~2026-31203-69 reverted me without comment; I asked why on their talk page, and they replied "It's obviously notable". On further discussion, they pointed to WP:TOOSOON#Events, which I had missed.

I see that the conditions there are probably met (though I'm not sure whether preparations are already underway really), and I've said so to ~2026-31203-69.

But is it really verifiable, as required by FUTUREEVENT? Has it received coverage as required by WP:COVERAGE?

I suspect this is a question of policy, and I wondered whether to ask it at WP:VPP rather than here. Should we have articles about future elections when the only things known about them are the date when or by which they must happen, and what the current situation is? ColinFine (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

This particular example shouldn't exist because it doesn't meet the second two elements of Wikipedia:Too soon § Events namely
  • Preparations are already underway
  • It is almost certain to take place
Preparations are not underway (I can't find RS that they are...) and its not even certain that the elections will take place in 2031, they could take place sooner. I would suggest that the article be moved to draft space, but those get deleted after 6 months of inactivity which would almost certainly happen to this article sometime in the next 4-5 years before it becomes notable. An alternative solution if some sources can be found is moving it to title similar to Next German federal election, that at least gets rid of the crystal ball nature of already adding a year to the article title. In solidarity, ScrubbedFalcon (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2026 (UTC)
As I say, @ScrubbedFalcon, my solution was to redirect it to Elections in Baden-Württemberg.
I'm not going to redo that just yet - waiting to see if any other view emerge. ColinFine (talk) 09:06, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Upcoming RfC on Elections


This upcoming RfC is to discuss clarifying the notability guidelines in regard to political elections (past, present, and future). As it is, they are vague, and many editors including myself have been confused as to in regards to what elections are and are not notable. (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2026 May 15#16:55, 15 May 2026 review of submission by Moondragon21, Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1293#Elections notability) Additionally, it is unclear how soon is WP:TOOSOON for elections. While there are some precedents in regard to election notability, there are currently few well-defined guidelines on it. Going forward, would it be advantageous to modify current Wikipedia guidelines or create a new page at WP:Notability (eletions), and if so, what would they dictate? I appreciate you taking the time to weigh in on this matter. -Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't really ready for an RfC yet. I'd suggest reading WP:RFCBEFORE and withdrawing the RfC (and starting this as a more general brainstorming discussion instead). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:21, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
That's fair. I've never done an RfC before, I did read that, but may have misunderstood it. How should I "cancel" the RfC? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
You can just remove the {{rfc}} template (and the above "do not archive until" line). Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Okay, thank you!Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I do not think there is much clarification needed here, really. WP:TOOSOON does not necessarily point to a specific point of time as being "too soon", but rather, as to when there is available information on a specific subject. You may have enough information specific to 2032 Summer Olympics already to justify an article, even if it is six years away. Conversely, there could be an election scheduled for within six months for which no information is available yet. This is just a derivative of WP:V: is there verifiable information on the specific subject? If yes, then it is not "too soon". Impru20talk 07:43, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion on Elections

Currently, the guidelines regarding political elections (past, present, and future) are too vague. The two main questions are as follows:

  • What are the specific notability guidelines regarding elections?
  • For future elections, how soon is WP:TOOSOON?

Would it be advantageous to create new, or modify existing, guidelines regarding elections? If so, what would they entail? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2026 (UTC)

Replying to these specific questions:
  • Notability guidelines for elections would typically be the same as those for other events, namely WP:NEVENTS, as well as WP:GNG in general. Though this would only be problematic for elections in tiny countries that do not receive much coverage, or elections at the very local level. Normally, most national elections, regional elections, and major local elections (such as those held in a country's capital and/or largest cities) are frequently notable enough on their own, given precedent and common coverage in sources.
  • As I explained in the above thread, WP:TOOSOON does not necessarily refer to the time remaining for the scheduled election/event to be held, but rather, as to when there is available information on the specific subject. You may have enough information specific to 2032 Summer Olympics already to justify an article, even if it is six years away. Or you can have information on an hypothesized repeat election immediately after the previous election has been held, or you can have opinion polls coming out shortly thereafter. Conversely, there could be an election scheduled for within six, four or two months for which no information is available yet. This is just a derivative of WP:V: is there verifiable information on the specific subject? If yes, then it is not "too soon".
Ultimately, this depends on the particular subject at hand. Impru20talk 12:48, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 86#Elections and notability, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Maldivian local elections, the AFD that led to that discussion. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:05, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this needs a new SNG separate from NEVENT and the GNG. Notability guidelines exist to ensure that we have enough to say about the subject to justify creating a separate article, and even notable topics can be merged to other pages. If a local election isn't notable, that doesn't mean we can't write about it – we can always cover it on a page with a broader topic that is notable. Finally, it looks to me that the case that spurred this, the 2026 Maldivian local elections AfD, could have closed as keep solely on meeting the GNG based on the numerous sources participants cited, which suggests the current rules are sufficient. Toadspike [Talk] 16:31, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, a previous AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Maldivian local elections, resulted in deletion. I don't know where exactly "we can... cover it on a page with a broader topic that is notable". Howard the Duck (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
On the 2026 discussion, before I showed up, at least 2 editors mentioned that "local elections are inherently notable". Ad Orientem asked for WP:POLICY that states this, and dismisses other articles as WP:OSE, but Kelob2678 says "There is no policy that claims inherent notability for national elections. But articles on them are regularly approved by the NPP and are almost never brought up to AfD." This was nominated for ITN which led to more eyes on the discusion; without those eyes, it would have been similarly deleted just like the 2017 one. Howard the Duck (talk) 18:27, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
We do need a specific notability guideline about elections to overcome the systemic bias. None of the arguments used to delete the 2017 Maldivian local elections - lack of sources, WP:EVENTCRIT - would ever be used about a local election from AUS/CAN/NZ/UK/USA. There are hundreds of local election articles from these countries with no or just a single source and most consist solely of results, hardly any prose. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Plenty of articles about local elections in the US are deleted/merged/redirected if non-notable (for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 Peoria County Board election). Agree that the Maldivian local elections certainly are notable (as one page), but that doesn't make every local election notable (I've often advocated for merging articles on mayoral elections in mid-sized cities to lists). Elli (talk | contribs) 20:34, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I tried suggesting this on Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 86#Elections and notability, as "National summaries of local elections of a country listed at List of sovereign states*... people there suggested WP:EVENTOUTCOMES.
An article solely about a local election on a specific location may be a lot trickier to define, but WP:WPE&R had a discussion on how WP:TOOSOON is past that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 31#Is next election always notable? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
I agree with Impru20's statement: WP:TOOSOON does not necessarily refer to the time remaining for the scheduled election/event to be held, but rather, as to when there is available information on the specific subject. Sometimes there is a great deal of coverage for future elections years in advance. GNG should be the standard for distant future elections and probably for all elections. I'm wary of creating another SNG but I'm sensitive to the problem of systemic bias. I would think national elections are always notable. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd agree on the Nationals always being relevant. It's when we get down to State and city and... that things get a little more murky. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
Indeed. There is certainly systemic bias at play in that elections in increasingly smaller administrative divisions of some countries are way more likely to meet GNG than in other countries. But I don't think writing stubs for local elections is a good solution. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:55, 4 June 2026 (UTC)
I think we also need to have a discussion on the notability of special/by-elections. I mostly edit US election pages and see pages for UK and Canadian elections. Those pretty consistently have individual pages for special elections to their national legislature, but I have started to see a lot of pages created for special elections to US state legislatures. I think in a good majority of cases, these special elections are not notable enough on their own to warrant having a separate article. Most, even ones that generate some media buzz, can be reasonably merged into the page for the next general election for that chamber. I think exceptions should include elections that generate an extremely disproportionately high amount of national media attention, which is almost none. The main examples I can think of that should be included are ones that flip chambers, such as the 2017 Washington's 45th state senate district special election. OutlawRun (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Most state legislative special elections aren't individually notable, yeah, and should be merged somewhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 14:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)
Most agree that special/by-elections to national legislatures are notable (probably good enough to be WP:SNG), but there are still gray areas. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1910 La Laguna's 1st Philippine Assembly district special election, a special election in the Philippines when it was under the United States. At this time the Resident Commissioners of the Philippines was the Philippines's non-voting members of the United States House of Representatives. Does that fall into "state legislative special elections"? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:25, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Taking up on this, and looking at some recent discussions (in recent AfDs, Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 86#Elections and notability, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Maldivian local elections and this one), there seems to be some points of rough consensus:

  • National and regional/state/provincial elections. These are almost always presumed notable (unless there is a particular reason for them to not be so). While there is no current, specific guideline or policy on this, there are multiple precedents (through AfDs), as well WP:POLITICIAN, WP:NSUBPOL and WP:POLOUTCOMES on people holding these offices.
  • Future elections. WP:TOOSOON tends to apply more to amount of information available (this is typically determined in a case-by-case basis) than to time remaining until the scheduled election date. While these are periodically contested, it is quite rare for an AfD on a future election article to end in "Delete" if there is already any verifiable information on that election. WP:CRYSTAL also provides cover for this.

Now, on the points of disagreement at the present time:

  • Local elections, as well as special/by-elections.

Myceteae made an appreciation above (with which I agree) that There is certainly systemic bias at play in that elections in increasingly smaller administrative divisions of some countries are way more likely to meet GNG than in other countries. However, I think that, at present, part of the problem comes because we have an excess of articles for local elections in countries that, while more likely to meet GNG as a country, are not proven to meet GNG/NEVENT for each individual city council/borough/ward election. Impru20talk 11:18, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

This is a good summary. So what's to be done? Maybe nothing? We can continue to evaluate these case-by-case though that does seem prone to producing uneven results and the considerable number of questionable elections articles already existence may inspire the proliferation of more. I agree we probably have too many of these. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
We could probably write a new section within Notability (events), under elections. While it can definitely expanded from this, here's a basic outline.
==Elections==
National and regional/state/provincial elections are always considered to be notable. All other elections are subject to the general notability guideline. WP:TOOSOON applies to whether there is already information about the election, not the date of the election itself.
Something needs to be said, too, about Impru's final point, but frankly, I don't really know how to word that. Also, if I've bungled something else up, lmk. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not yet sure I support this but if we go this direction I would replace whether there is already information about the election with whether the election has already received significant coverage or something to that effect. Perhaps an explicit reference to WP:PAGEDECIDE could also be added. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
h, yeah, that's definitely a better way to word it. Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Ah
Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 15:21, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
I would support something like this being added. I also support adding a reference to WP:PAGEDECIDE. Impru20talk 10:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'll just add that I am generally opposed to developing more WP:SNGs. If brief guidance like this is really going to be helpful, then OK. It should be put to an RFC on this page and advertised at Village Pump and other relevant venues. There's not enough participation here currently to make such an addition to this guideline. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 15:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
FWIW, 2025 Iloilo City local elections was kept, while 2028 Iloilo City local elections was deleted for being WP:TOOSOON. No comment on Tower Hamlets, but you guys can check on the AFD per se and deduce yourselves on how it'll end up. Howard the Duck (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Funnily though, I missed your last Keep !vote so I was not able to reply to it before closure (which I do not contest; that was my fault for not being aware enough). However, since you did not even attempt to counter WP:LASTING or WP:GEOSCOPE concerns (because you limited yourself to putting a lot of random sources making any passing-by section of the city), and because the closer did not actually address these (limiting themselves to close that AfD on the number of !votes for Keep), that AfD does not help us resolve these issues. Tower Hamlets seems to be heading in a different direction, though it still could be closed as "No consensus" depending on what the closer chooses to weight. Impru20talk 10:21, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Re: Iloilo City -- WP:GEOSCOPE was satisfied as the article both included WP:RS with WP:GNG from both Iloilo City and Metro Manila publications. As stated on my comment, several WP:RS are very in depth articles on politicians and alliances participating in the election.
I'd more than welcome a WP:DRV. You can event pinpoint which references are random sources making any passing.
Re: Tower Hamlets - in the Philippines, we place all elections in one place on one article (as discussed above re: 1992 Davao City elections). This is not practiced on other countries' elections (each ballot question is a separate article). This deserves a discussion on which practice is better. Howard the Duck (talk) 10:58, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Re: Iloilo City - You did not prove or explain how that election had "a significant impact over a wide region, domain, or widespread societal group" (that is what GEOSCAPE means) nor how it "had a significant impact/was a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance" (LASTING). What you did was to throw many sources acknowleding the event was verifiable, but that was never in question in the AfD itself. You are mixing what GNG means here. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it deserves a stand-alone article; that was the point of the AfD, and it was not addressed, so it is entirely useless for us to help us going forward in this discussion. This is what I am saying (and I please ask you to stop going around in circles as in other discussions; I think I have made my point crystal clear here, and that does not mean reviewing that AfD).
Re: Tower Hamlets - in the Philippines, we place all elections in one place on one article (as discussed above re: 1992 Davao City elections). This is not practiced on other countries' elections. This is actually done in some countries, i.e. Spain: 2023 Spanish local elections in Catalonia, 2023 Spanish local elections in the Valencian Community, 2023 Spanish local elections in the Community of Madrid, etc. There are no individual articles for each city council election, except for the very major ones (Madrid, Barcelona, Valencia, Zaragoza and Seville, which are the five most populated cities in the country). What is done in the UK seems more malpractice than actually helpful. Impru20talk 11:07, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
Re: Iloilo City: The closer was very specific: only you did not agree that the subject met WP:GNG. Again, I'd be more than happy to have this go to WP:DRV because WP:CON says it passed WP:GNG.
Re: Tower Hamlets: 2023 Aranese Council election is for Val d'Aran, which has a population of less than 10,000. All of the districts of Iloilo City or even the London Borough of Tower Hamlets have a larger population than Val d'Aran. I'm not really arguing based on population, but it does not look like "major". Howard the Duck (talk) 11:22, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
You are for some reason relitigating on that AfD despite it having been closed in your favour. I am saying that the closer did not mention concerns on GEOSCOPE and LASTING, so that AfD does not serve us to extract any conclusion on GEOSCOPE and LASTING, because nothing is said in the closing statement about GEOSCOPE and LASTING. It is very tiresome that your inability to understand what you are being told keeps bringing us in circles over and over and over again. I am not intending to bring that to DRV because I am not intending to relitigate that AfD. It is you who seem willing to relitigate it. Want it to be brought to DRV? Bring it yourself and leave me alone. For God's sake.
I am not the creator nor an editor of 2023 Aranese Council election, so I cannot assume any responsibility on it. Though I should note that Val d'Aran is an autonomously governed entity and not a mere city council, so it would be more akin to a province/state/region than to a town (see what we said above: "National and regional/state/provincial elections are always considered to be notable"). Nonetheless, if you have any issues on it, you are free to bring it to WP:AFD and provide your arguments why you think it does not merit a stand-alone article (I may support you if you are convincing enough). Now, what is exactly your point here? Impru20talk 13:09, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
The Aranese articles seem indeed quite underdeveloped, and seem to be part of a series which is (as of now) incomplete. They also seem to have been all created by the same user in 2022, except the 2023 one which was obviously created after that. I am going to do some research on whether these may actually meet GNG, because they could also be merged into a single article covering these. Certainly, these do not get much coverage not even within Spain; their supramunicipal nature would be the only thing that could justify stand-alone articles as of now (per GEOSCOPE, and even that would be on the brink...). As said, feel free to AfD them if you wish. Impru20talk 13:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
If Val d'Aran isn't actually a part of any higher political subdivision, there's an argument that it should have its own article, again, based on your argument "National and regional/state/provincial elections are always considered to be notable".
Which is similar to Iloilo City. It's even in List of primary local government units of the Philippines! Howard the Duck (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
You are absolutely obsessed with Iloilo City. This discussion does not revolve around your city, and you are bringing it off-topic and unable to produce anything constructive. Please, do not make me waste my time any longer, I am out of any further conversation with you. Thank you. Impru20talk 14:47, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm not even from there LOL. You were the one who sent two Iloilo City articles to AFD. But, as you wish... Howard the Duck (talk) 15:02, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I did not send the 2028 article to AFD. Now let's stick to the actual topic at hand. Regards. Impru20talk 16:38, 15 June 2026 (UTC)
I should also note that there was an attempt three years ago (see Wikipedia:Notability (politics)) to establish a specific notability guideline on politics as a whole, but it failed due to WP:NPOLITICIAN already existing. The bit on elections was, however, left intentionally blank, so it received almost no discussion. Because an attempt at establishing an essay on elections could be worked out from NPOLITICIAN and other related guidelines? I would say elections are a specific kind of event which has a vast amount of articles in Wikipedia and could merit its own specific guideline. Impru20talk 10:30, 15 June 2026 (UTC)