Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Makati 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 keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Makati local elections, 2016

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable local event, other articles in this vein have been deleted in the recent past. Existing citations do not support a claim of notability to this event per se. KDS 4444 Talk  15:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. sst✈ 16:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. - supergabbyshoe
 * Delete - not notable Zezen (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - No comment for Las Piñas and Mandaluyong (probably delete until someone comes up with a good enough expansion), but both Makati and Caloocan has had election articles in the past that weren't AFDed and are still existing after two election cycles (2016 is the third one). – H T  D  20:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Makati 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 (it is more than four times the size of Tunbridge Wells)), and on which there is consensus that the elections are notable. Deleting the Makati article would be a clear case of systematic bias against non-English speaking countries. I have restored the speedily deleted Malabon article as the city is even larger, and the article is no different to East Hertfordshire District Council election, 2015. Number   5  7  21:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets the requirements of WP:NEVENT and WP:V. Elections in cities this size are definitely notable and are easily verifiable.--RioHondo (talk) 00:52, 17 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.