Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor

Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Auditor and Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio, County Commission was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was ambiguous. 9 delete, 3 clear keep, 6 keep with a strong recommendation to merge and 2 ambiguous votes. Failing to reach a clear consensus to delete, the articles are kept for now. Rossami 05:37, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Please? RickK 21:04, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

As the author of the page, I'm wondering why this has been nominated for deletion. Which category do you suggest makes it inappropriate for Wiki? Indeed, I'm still working on this article, and a number of other related articles, on Montgomery County government. If you find something inadequate -- let me know -- I'm either working on it or perhaps it's something I've overlooked. In short, I vote against deletion. Acsenray 21:31, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * At what granularity of trivia do we let Wikipedia go? Where are the dog warden election results from every municipality in the world?  RickK 21:33, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * What official deletion reason is being cited? It is a key municipality in a key swing state in the U.S. that may be interesting for voting trends purposes. Wikipedia has short articles on every municipality in the country, even ones that don't exist as jurisdictions except in the books of the Census Bureau. These are simple facts, not opinion or pontificating, that I myself have taken much trouble in tracking down. Is "no one is interested in this" a listed deletion policy? I wouldn't be averse to merging this information into other information about Montgomery County. Acsenray 21:49, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Officially, I would argue for deletion on the grounds of notability. While election results on the county level matter to the county, they do not go beyond that.  We do not note journalistic items of local import. Geogre 21:50, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * comment: there's a whole lot more of these under Montgomery_County%2C_Ohio --Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with these entries is whether someone will be around in 2006 to diligently update them. Does Montgomery County Ohio have a website with this info? If so a link there would serve everyone better (Still, gimme some nice dog-catcher voting statistics against information on Star Wars fighters which weren't even in the films any day... )--Ianb 21:52, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Second the county website link idea. As for the updating concerns, that's not a valid reason to delete. &bull; Benc &bull; 16:54, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Simply not notable enough, I'm afraid. Delete. Lacrimosus 21:56, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, if the tide is turning against me, I'll have to keep in mind the boundaries of minutia. And then wonder how it compares to using a separate page for each of the (fictional) rulers of Numenor, most of who were never mentioned in the actual text of the work in question. Hmm. Acsenray 21:59, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Yeah, delete those too! Terrapin 15:15, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you think those are not notable, please tag and nominate them for VfD. Geogre 00:43, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Result of these elections is not significant enough. Appropriate for 1-liner in an article about Montgomery County, Ohio. Wile E. Heresiarch 01:51, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. And if there are separate pages for every ruler of Númenor, put most of them on this page for deletion as well. I hate cleaning up after that kind of mess myself. Jallan 02:12, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You may want to check out the information on the ruler of Numenor articles. They're rather more extensive than the stubs we're discussing here.  RickK 04:17, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment - It doesn't matter how extensive the article is if it is about something of no importance. We've deleted some very long vanity articles in the past. Average Earthman 10:55, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * An article about a known fictional character in a known universe read by millions of people is not vanity. Do we really want to start this downward slide?  Because if the Numenor articles start getting deleted or merged, I WILL start doing the same thing with the thousands of Pokemon articles.  RickK 19:24, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with RickK, this is just too far down for an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a simple compilation of election results. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 05:45, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. What's next?  School treasurer? Parks superintendent? For all 10000 counties in the U.S. (or however many there are)?  Terrapin 15:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I've just been told that encyclopedic means comprehensive in reaction to my proposal to limit excessive detail copied out of works of published fiction. Does that have any bearing on this discussion? Acsenray 16:25, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * For the curious, this discussion is located here on DP. &bull; Benc &bull; 16:56, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is borderline notable, but consider that Montgomery County, Ohio has over half a million people living in it. Also consider that this is really a subpage of the main county article. It would be in the article itself if it weren't too long. Ask yourself this question: would the Montgomery County, Ohio article be stronger without its election data? &bull; Benc &bull; 16:52, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm actually from the area, and I really truly don't care what the election results were in Montgomery County at any given time. However, the information isn't hurting anyone by being there, and it might be very interesting to someone who is interested in the state of Ohio local politics - it would, however, be more useful if it were all merged into one Election Results, Montgomery County, Ohio. Also I would recommend removing the red links. If any of the officials or candidates mentioned merit their own articles at some point, the links can be added later. --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 23:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, excessive granularity.  Also, see Avoid statements that will date quickly.  SWAdair | Talk  04:28, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Link to the appropriate part of the county website instead. --Michael Snow 17:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Aranel's suggestion (though I suggest Election Results of Montgomery County, Ohio).
 * That was User:KeithTyler.  --[[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 21:45, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep (though I'd be happy with merging) - Why should we delete this? And what's wrong with granularity, if people are ever to come here looking for, uh, grains? OK, so the odds are fairly long on someone looking for this, but they're unlikely to find it too easily anywhere, and as has been pointed out above, there are plenty of far more obscure articles on the wiki. --DMG413 00:43, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (talk)]] 06:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge --Allyunion 10:46, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge into one election results article for the county. I agree that the red links should be removed&mdash;I find it highly unlikely that articles about every mundane Ohio official will ever be created (or should be created).  Though then that begs the question of what it gets us to just include data on when they were elected...  Postdlf 19:13, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested above until a better guideline regarding such articles is drawn up. &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  19:24, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to merge these articles if that's what is determined to be the better route. Acsenray 21:12, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.