Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2001 Santa Rosa Local Elections


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. I'll note here that the articles can be restored if sources for these election results can be found. – bradv  20:42, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

2001 Santa Rosa Local Elections

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Contested draftifications of two articles on local elections in the Philippines. Neither of these articles has any references, and so they fail verifiability, which is a core policy.

The Heymann criterion will be the addition of two references to reliable sources, such as Philippine newspapers. (The references must be added to the article, not merely listed in this AFD as a URL Dump.) Not draftifying these articles again unilaterally, because that would be move-warring, so relying in AFD as the consensus process. Draftify all as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Philippines. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I also found which also does not cite any sources despite going into detail, I would say that there are sources out there that exist, although they need to be found for now. Rorr404 (talk) 00:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The nominator is not supposed to !vote, as they are already assumed to be voting for delete. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Timothytyy (talk) 09:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with that. Just putting a bold "delete" while nominator is unnecessary, and anything that attempts to make it look like there's consensus where there isn't would be bad. A clear "as nominator I prefer this ATD" should be fine (so long as it's made clear it's from the nom, which it was here) since like you said, the default assumption is that the nom is arguing for deletion. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 17:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not aware of a guideline that says that sources mentioned in an AFD discussion have to be added to the article during the time of the discussion. I mean, that is ideal but it frequently doesn't happen. Liz Read! Talk! 02:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete both, or draftify to Draft:2001 Laguna local elections and Draft:2004 Laguna local elections. I agree there's a verifiability problem here, and there appear to be no good online sources (searches for names like "Vanni Bustamante" turn up essentially nothing). I also think notability is an issue. This is a municipality with around 400K people that is neither the capital nor largest city in its province. I don't think having a page for every minor municipal election makes sense. 2007 Laguna local elections gives a good example of how this information can be covered on the page for the provincial elections, though there isn't a provincial page for 2001 or 2004, when I suspect there should be. Dylnuge  (Talk • Edits) 18:10, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails WP:GNG. ThisIsSeanJ (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Found no news coverage of either elections, which is understandable considering even for American cities like Irving and Chula Vista, tracking down pre-2015 online news coverage of local elections can be quite difficult. However, I wasn't able to locate any election results to verify the date on the articles. What's more concerning is that for all the Wikipedia articles on Santa Rosa local elections, only the most recent one in 2022 have sources. If the creator actually have sources to back up the election data on the articles, they would have just add sources instead of moving the draft into main space without any improvement. Tutwakhamoe (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.