Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative 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   delete both. Jayjg (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2008
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Unremarkable student election for an unremarkable student organization. See also Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2009.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No obvious notabilitity. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy delete under CSD A7 - there is no claim of importance or significance. PDCook (talk) 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think an election falls under WP:CSD. It isn't an individual, animal, organization, or web content. Calathan (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right. I should have read the name of the article! PDCook (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A student election at a school seems clearly non-notable, and I don't see any sources at all for this election. Calathan (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - (e/c) It doesn't fall under A7 (individuals, animals, organizations, web content) as this is about an election. All the same, this is a non-notable election for a non-notable position on a non-notable board. The related article in the nom should also be included in this AfD. —DoRD (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; to rearrange Catfish Jim's words, "Obvious no notabilitity". Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge with Otago Boys' High School whether they want to report on their governance in that article is a matter of content judgment. When I was in high school, the vote totals were not announced to save the feelings of the candidates.  Now the kids want to post them on Wikipedia. Racepacket (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. - gadfium  19:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both: Non-notable school elections. Joe Chill (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Improvement can still be attained. Governance of a school has strong local notability. Don't let deletionism get in the way of a potentially good article. Wipkipkedia (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Congratulations to Caleb, but no amount of improvement will make a high school's student council notable. Mandsford (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What Student Council? Please read the article before contributing. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't believe that this is notable. - Rootless Juice (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, we are not a school newspaper. Few if any would report these news. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

2009 election
I've added Otago Boys' High School Board of Trustees Student Representative Election, 2009 to this deletion discussion, because it has identical issues. Nyttend (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Same reasons as above. No asserted notability, nor any obvious reason for notability.Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete For the same reasons as the 2008 election. Calathan (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Again, no claim of notability. PDCook (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snow anyone? PDCook (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Snowstorm Delete. --Milowent (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete both - this is material for the school notice-board, not an encyclopedia. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason I stated above. —DoRD (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions.  —• Gene93k (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge per above. Thank you for raising both articles. Racepacket (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both due to lack of notability. Add to List of bad article ideas. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both due to lack of notability. It is also adding recentism to WP unless ALL the past elections have their own articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete both as non-notable, see no mention on the Otago Daily Times website of either. Don't agree with merge on the basis of WP:NOTDIR. XLerate (talk) 22:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Improvement can still be attained. Governance of a school has strong local notability. Don't let deletionism get in the way of a potentially good article. Wipkipkedia (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I appreciate that you're standing up for what you believe in, but if local notability were the standard, we'd have billions of articles about purely local matters. Mandsford (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why is that a problem? Wikipedia inclusionists (who don't vote on these pages nearly as much as deletionists do, would say that if knowledge is lost when a page is deleted, then keep it. There is no point deleting this page at all. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. No notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Don't believe that this is notable. - Rootless Juice (talk) 11:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

General Comments
 No discussion has been entered into on any talk pages before the deletion request. Due process cannot be skipped. Take the time to discuss your issues on the relevant talk page. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're new here. All I can say is that when it comes to whether the article should exist at all, this is the relevant talk page.  Regarding "due process", everyone has the right to present their "evidence" and to make their case, as well as a right to appeal the judgment.  Mandsford (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have a look at Notability (events). Do you really think an election for a school student representative is of any lasting, historical significance? Did this election receive any coverage at all in any major newspapers? Did it even receive non-trivial, independent coverage in a local newspaper?Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the deletion discussion page for the articles in question, and therefore exactly the right place. I believe you misunderstand the deletion process. It would be helpful for you to review the general notability guidelines so that you may more fully understand what is deleted and what is kept and why. A review of verifiability and reliable sources would be a good idea as well.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not really a dispute over the content of the pages, which would be discussed on their talk pages. It's a dispute over whether the articles ought to be on Wikipedia at all. Consequently, this deletion discussion is an appropriate forum to resolve the dispute. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you're arguing directly against notability as the guideline for what should be included on Wikipedia. Requiring notability ensures that there are sufficient sources of information on a subject to create an article with content that is verifiable, and that there will be sufficient interest from editors to keep the article in decent shape. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The issue here is not my knowledge of Wikipedia notability guidelines. Trust me, I have read them and know them as well as you do. However, I myself lean heavily to the inclusionist wing of Wikipedia and find it unfortunate that so many users take every opportunity to delete articles before they can even get off thr ground. To Mandsford, your discrimination against users solely because they have not been here as long as you is unwarranted. Wipkipkedia (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have offended you. I hope that you will keep contributing to Wikipedia even after this discussion closes.  Mandsford (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No offence was ever taken. Wipkipkedia (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2010 (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.