Wikipedia talk:Election Coverage

Too prescriptive

Sorry, I don't think the form of articles should be regulated in this manner. If an election is notable (i.e., if it generates a significant amount of non-trivial press coverage) we can have an article on it under the existing rules. Existing policies of NPOV apply to it, so I don't see why any specific rules would be required above and beyond this. JulesH 14:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This policy wouldn't really exist to regulate current articles. The idea is really to enable the creation of articles that might not always be considered notable enough under existing rules. I don't think it far-fetched to imagine that a fair number of people will be ill-informed about a local election if it isn't covered by Wikipedia, and I think it even more likely that their understanding will be skewed by the amount of space devoted to a better publicized position in any article.

The proposal specifically states that the policy will not apply to elections that are notable in their own right. The basic gist is, "if an election (or part of an election) isn't notable enough to give it a regular article, give it this, instead." I think Wikipedia is used so blindly as a resource by some folks that it's simply a disservice to society to exclude some information- if one person who didn't read their pamphlet read a Wikipedia article on their election, then decided to vote, I'd say that including an otherwise non-notable election is worth it.

I'm just saying, I think we need to adapt in certain small ways to the way our readers use us. I think it's to the benefit of society that this should be one of those small adaptations. --Moralis 08:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• This may be better covered with "articles on current events" (Wikipedia:Notability (news)). >Radiant< 12:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

This is well covered by WP:N which has incorporated the best of Notability (news). This is not receiving support and should be tagged rejected. --Kevin Murray 03:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)