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 delete‎. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Aurora, Illinois 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)

Falls below Wikipedia’s notability standards. At this point, it’s a routine election that could be adequately covered within the incumbent mayor (Irvin)’s article.

Wikipedia is not Ballotpedia. Not all elections are covered, and Aurora mayoral races are not elections which Wikipedia would treat as holding inherit and perennial notability. Certainly, elections in Aurora COULD have factors that allow it to reach such note. But at this point: there are no factors that make this particular Aurora mayoral election independent notable. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Illinois. SecretName101 (talk) 01:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a lot of your points here, but the mayor himself is notable enough for a page. There also seems to be some level of notability with numerous reliable sources regarding this specific election Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer The mayor is notable, that is why he has his own article. This election is not itself notable enough, hence why it should not. It can also be covered within his article. Routine local coverage of an election does not establish particular notability. SecretName101 (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Th majority of the coverage is from the Chicago Tribune, not necessarily local to Aurora, the second largest city in the state. Usually even local newspapers only release minimal coverage of mayoral races, which is also not routine Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lima Bean Farmer Tribune serves as a paper of standard for greater Chicagoland, so routine coverage of a municipal election in its metro area is to be entirely expected.

Tribune coverage could help demonstrate notability if it went well beyond expected routine coverage (main front page headline of the print edition, frequent in-depth coverage, etc.), but routine Tribune coverage does not really establish much beyond its existence. One would expect the Tribune to provide some level of coverage to any Aurora mayoral election simply by virtue of the Tribune's role as a paper of standard.

If this election somehow becomes more than routine, it can obtain note. But at this stage, it does not have sufficient independent note for an article.

Yes Aurora is the second-largest city in Illinois, but such a population stat does not give its mayoral elections high note. Aurora is not really a major epicenter of the state/regional politics or economy. It's a populous, but as a suburb/exburb of Chicago its politics are not at the epicenter of its region. Hence why there is not inherent note of each election: the outcomes of its mayoral elections are not expected to cause ripples that are felt outside of it.

Population does not always correlate to the inherently notability of local politics. Dallas and Phoenix, for instance, have many high-population suburbs. Those suburbs have hardly-notable mayor offices. Meanwhile there are similarly populous and less populous cities that are notable for a variety of factors, and whose mayoral elections carry some note. And even then, many such cities have master articles for their mayoral elections, with very few receiving dedicated spun-off articles. Also, different cities allot different power to their mayoralties: some cities have mayoralties that are more powerful than the mayoralties of similarly-situated cities.

For examples of cities whose mayoralties have electoral note that perhaps exceeds the mere population of the city (and reasons why their note would exceed mere population stats):

• Hartford, Connecticut: anchor city of a large metro (47th most populous metro area), state capitol, major economic center (insurance capitol of the world, a main economic hub of New England
• Portland, Maine: anchor city of a sizable metro, commercial hub of Maine and upper New England
• Providence: anchor of a large metro (39th most populous metro area); state capitol and most populous city in state
• Burlington, VT: state capitol and main economic center, with an unusual local politics (successes of third parties, etc.) --only some elections have received articles, and I'd probably advise consolidating most into a master article on mayoral elections in the city instead
• Springfield, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area
• Worcester, Mass: political/economic anchor of sizable metro area

SecretName101 (talk) 20:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No sigcov from non-local sources. Even the Chicago Tribune coverage is through the Aurora Beacon-News, which is just more local coverage. Per WP:DIVERSE, this doesn't meet the "national or international coverage" stipulation, and thus isn't notable. Jordano⁵³ 15:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I think that Jordano53's points summarize it best. There is nothing to believe this election is going to pass a test of historic significance.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 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.