Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nebraska

Points of interest related to Nebraska on Wikipedia: Outline – History – Portal – Category – WikiProject – Alerts – Deletions – Cleanup – Stubs – Assessment – To-do

Deletion Sorting Project
(talk) Project page Lists (by ABC) Lists (by topic) Lists (computer-readable) AfD: Today, Yesterday Delsort scripts
v t e

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Nebraska. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Nebraska|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Nebraska. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to US.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

• WikiProject Deletion sorting/Nebraska/archive

2026 Nebraska gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources focusing on the subject and thus it is WP:TOOSOON for an article. Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election also shows that other Wikipedians thing strong sourcing is needed for an election article. 2600:387:15:5111:0:0:0:9 (talk) 23:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Nebraska. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:25, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not only because sources will exist, but current sources show some coverage of this election, beyond just WP:ROUTINE. Vermont is different, since that draft was declined as none of those sources relate to the actual election, just governor popularity. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, because eventually there will be enough reliable sources to satisfy WP:GNG. JTZegers (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm wondering if the nominator did a WP:BEFORE search; I find it highly unlikely that there are zero sources in existence for an article about an election. 331dot (talk) 18:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found [1] and [2]. Not THAT much but still non-routine coverage that seems significant Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I found only this - granted it’s stronger then the coverage of the Vermont election, but it seems most sources aren’t talking about this election in depth yet. Seems like a case of WP:TOOSOON. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Note I am the same as the nominator IP, this dynamic IP stuff is annoying. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 18:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think there's much doubt that this election will get coverage, even if it's not there yet. 331dot (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But that still seems like TOOSOON, doesn’t it? That’s why Draft:2026 Vermont gubernatorial election got declined. Wikipedia can wait for their to be better sourcing. 72.159.224.21 (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per comments of JTZegers. Servite et contribuere (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As the creator of this article (and other similar ones), there are numerous articles specifically about this election. I won’t lie and say it’s strong, but unlike the one in Vermont (which keeps getting brought up), about half the articles focus on Nebraska. The references for the Vermont article only have a footnote about the Vermont elections. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]