Talk:2011 California's 36th congressional district special election

Untitled

Yesterday, Saturday April 15, I included Matt Roozee in the candidate list of this article. Later in the afternoon Muboshgu removed him citing that he "not a notable person". Muboshgu also pointed me to WP:RS and WP:ELNO (reliable sources and external links respectively). I have read all of these standards and believe that Matt Roozee should still be included in this article on the special election in California Congressional District 36. Here's why.

Notability applies to articles about individuals. Rightly so, for Wikipedia cannot become a catalog of 7 billion people on the planet and must therefore find a standard dictating who may have a specific article and who may not. WP has decided that only people who are notable warrant a specific article about them.

But this article is not about a person, it is about an election slate. Excluding any certified candidate from the article renders the article factually incomplete. (Users looking for a list of candidates who will appear on their ballot in the voting booth, will get an incomplete story when they check with WP. Is this what WP wants?) The standard for election slates should not be Notability but should be Objective Completeness.

I would like to restore Matt to this article and therefore I seek comments as to the appropriateness for doing so in light of the argument above.

ChrisCurzon (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

This article states that the special election in CD 36 did not take place under the rules of Proposition 14, enacted in 2010.

But an article in Ballotpedia on Proposition 14 states:

"Proposition 14 requires that candidates run in a single primary open to all registered voters, with the top two vote-getters meeting in a runoff. The new system took effect in the April 19, 2011 special election for State Senate, District 28."

This must be correct, since in all special primaries for the U.S. House and for the California Legislature dating back to 1965, the top vote-getter in each party advanced to the special general election, if no one achieved a majority in the special primary.

I urge the author of this article, or someone more familiar with the editing process than I, to fix this error. Rontrigger (talk) 06:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on California's 36th congressional district special election, 2011. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714132609/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090714132609/http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html to http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)