Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn by D.M.N. (non admin closure by Roleplayer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC))

Birmingham Council election, 2008

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not-notable local election. Could easily be deleted, or merged into United Kingdom local elections, 2008, however it definitely does not warrant a full page on it. D.M.N. (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I withdraw nomination. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added multiple reliable sources which have significant coverage of the Birmingham election thus establishing notability. Birmingham is one of the largest and most important councils in England and as such council elections have always been accepted as notable - they have never been deleted at afd before, precedents include Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991, Articles for deletion/Norfolk County municipal election, 2006, Articles for deletion/Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007 and Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007 - this one should be kept as well. Davewild (talk) 07:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Strong Merge in to United Kingdom local elections, 2008 Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so could you explain you reasoning for why this fails the WP:N notability guideline or any other policy or guideline? Davewild (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep has multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Wikipedia is an almanac, and therefore does keep details of notable election, where the information is sourcable. Notability has been established - deletion would be a retrograde step on the road to building an encyclopedia. I agree, it "could easily be deleted", (as can any page) but why? A verifiable, neutral article on a notable subject that does not resort to original research does not seem like a worthy candidate for deletion. EJF (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How is it a notable election. I can understand why the London one is, but why Birmingham? D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For wikipedia notability comes from having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (quote from the notability guideline), it does not come from subjective judgements like it looks important so it is notable, or Who cares about this stuff anyway. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with Davewild. Indeed if we were to decide that only "important" elections that have significant coverage should have articles on Wikipedia, Birmingham Council election would have an article, as it is the second largest city in the United Kingdom - and the election is of great public interest. To come back to policy reasons, it is a notable election because it has been covered by multiple, reliable, independent sources. EJF (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I see sources have been added. However, when the final results are in, I hope a bit of prose is added to the article apart from the bland tables. To avoid a pile on of Keeps, I withdraw the nomination. An administrator may now close this AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (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.