Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lipa local elections, 2016


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  07:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Lipa local elections, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local election. Other elections such as this have been successfully speedily deleted in the recent past. Article contains no citations to support a notability claim. KDS 4444 Talk  15:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of  Philippines-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   TALK    15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. - supergabbyshoe
 * Keep Lipa is larger than many English districts and towns for which we have complete sets of election articles (e.g. Category:Council elections in Bolton Borough or Category:Tunbridge Wells Council elections (Lipa is more than double the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Lipa article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. Regarding the Malabon article, it was only two sentences long, and this one is far longer – they are entirely different prospects. Nevertheless, Malabon is even larger than Lipa, and given that we have many English council election articles of similar length (East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015), I am going to restore it (it deserves a full AfD at the very least). Number   5  7  21:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you will agree that the length of the article is not by itself a reason for retaining it on Wikipedia. I think you will probably also agree that the size of the area being represented is not a sound reason either.  What this article needs are sources showing evidence of its real world notability— that such sources may not exist is perhaps the result of systemic bias, but Wikipedia policies with regard to the need to have them are very clear and do not allow for very many exceptions.  I do not see anything about the topic of this article (yet) that would qualify it as an exception to these policies.  Unless it obtains them, then to my understanding it should not exist as a stand alone article, yes?  KDS 4444  Talk  01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Unless you have searched the online Tagalog language press, and have access to the offline version, I doubt you will be able to find a lot of sources. Just because you can't find English ones, doesn't mean it isn't covered. I think the size of the city is very relevant, especially given that we have similar articles for far smaller jurisdictions in English speaking countries. Hence why I referred to this being a classic case of systematic bias. Number   5  7  10:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:14, 31 October 2015 (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.