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 speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1995 United States elections (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)

Copy/Pasted from other articles without proper attribution. Mostly unreferenced. Editor refuses to communicate and has repeatedly reverted the redirect which this article previously had, saying to send it to AFD instead. Well, here we are... Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Lists, and United States of America. Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that I am the creator of this article - the nominator decided not to ping me perhaps because they didn't want my input. There are dozens of year articles for American elections, many of which are also off-year election years. They serve a mostly navigational purpose, as far as I can tell. I know the formatting isn't like the other year articles, but that is an issue which can be fixed with editing and not a fundamental flaw. I could understand if it was something like, I don't know, a couple of ward elections, but there were multiple gubernatorial races and a few House seats on this year. The mayoral list is also not complete -- there were more elections that year than are listed in the article. Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got an AfD notification on your talk page. Complaining about not also getting a ping is contemptibly precious. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this doesn't address the substance of what I said and hones in on a single off-hand sentence I wrote. I can't be "Here, There, and Everywhere"... Billclinton1996 (talk) 21:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not my fault that you distracted readers from the substance of your own post by opening it with a really dumb "off-hand" complaint. For whatever reason, you seem bent on self-sabotage. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a mish-mash of information copied from other articles. WP:TNT seems applicable here. --John B123 (talk) 22:18, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note that this user has reported me to the ANI noticeboard because of this article. I don't think their opinion should be discounted, but they obviously have a COI due to their ongoing dispute with me. Billclinton1996 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No COI at all. I resent your cheap attempt to discredit my opinion. Please familiarise yourself with WP:AGF. --John B123 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not need to familiarise myself. I am correct. You have a dispute with me (the article creator) over this exact article, therefore there is a conflict of interest if you vote on a deletion nomination for this article. I would regard it the same way even if you had opted to keep, for whatever reason. I won't discuss further, because I can sense that this discussion will devolve. Thanks. Billclinton1996 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, you are not correct. That is not what "conflict of interest" means on Wikipedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...Cambridge Dictionary: "a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result". I think this is applicable here. I did not say WP:COI as in editing about people whom you have a relationship with, there is a difference. Please don't try and nitpick. Billclinton1996 (talk) 23:44, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And that is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia. WP:WIKILAYWERINGWP:WIKILAWYERING won't get you anywhere. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:WIKILAWYERING, is the intended target, there's a typo! :)

  MolecularPilot ^{🧪️✈️} 04:04, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not "wikilaywering", just facts. As expected, this conversation has devolved and has become utterly irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not responding further unless this is pertaining to why this article need to be deleted or not. I think my ANI "horse whipping" has become a fully-fledged "flogging and pillory". Shame. Billclinton1996 (talk) 04:39, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  a situation in which someone cannot make a fair decision because they will be affected by the result I cannot imagine why you would think the result of this AfD would affect me in the slightest. reported me to the ANI noticeboard because of this article incorrect, I started the ANI because of your refusal to comply with Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and legal requirements.--John B123 (talk) 08:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What's this? The consequences of your own actions? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:54, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's what I was thinking. Delete it, nuke the copy/paste violations, and if someone wants to start over fresh and create the article properly, they are welcome to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. This feels like a TNT scenario. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and restore redirect as copyright violation, being a cut-and-paste from several different other Wikipedia articles without attribution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After complaints, I have substantially rewritten the article, including attribution and sources where necessary. Any potential copyright violations can be revdeleted. I will leave it to participants in this discussion as to whether my changes are considered "substantial" enough or not. And FYI, TNT is an essay and not a policy; I could cite WP:TNTTNT and it would have the same weight. Billclinton1996 (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing, nobody implied TNT is a policy. But keep digging that hole. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that anyone believed it was. I just think it's an important thing to note. I'm not very good at digging, unfortunately. Billclinton1996 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User has since been blocked as a sockpuppet by User:NinjaRobotPirate. BusterD (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can this article be speedy deleted per G5? Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been G5'd. As I've !voted above, can someone else please close this. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:25, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is what happened but I'd like to re-create it. Sir, may I have some refund? Bearian (talk) 02:54, 19 March 2025 (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.