Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Salisbury City Council election, 2009


 * 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. Can I also remind editors that WP:NPA is a mandatory policy. Some of the comments here which appear to attack the competence of an editor based on their nationality are quite unhelpful. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Salisbury City Council election, 2009

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Salisbury City Council is a parish council, the third and lowest tier of local government in England, and the fourth tier overall (although I'm sure someone will point out that Salisbury City Council is actually the second tier of local government, this is because Wiltshire is a unitary area in which the first and second tier councils have been merged, not because Salisbury City Council is more powerful than a parish council). I cannot see how an election to this level of local government is notable; this article has no references and its only source is the council itself. The article was deleted via prod, but the creator requested it be restored and the AfD process used. Number  5  7  13:00, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep
 * The fact that the "article has no references and its only source is the council itself" should be irrelevant to this discussion.
 * The issue of notability is a tricky one and one that in my view should not just be determined by what tiers of government exist above it.
 * Perhaps in the future, there will be a large number of individuals on wikipedia either involved in a Salisbury project or a UK local government project who will be better judges of this article's notability than those of us with no strong connection to either. Until then, I don't really feel it is right for anyone else to turn round to the editor who took the trouble to create the page and say we don't think this is notable enough. Graemp (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Article is now fully referenced to reliable sources. I am sorry I overlooked this when creating it, but at the outset it had external links for verification which later became dead without my being aware of it. As you correctly say, Number 57, this city council is at the second tier of local government. For what it's worth, I disagree with you on the question of "power", but Wikipedia does not (so far as I am aware) have a guideline establishing that certain levels of administration are non-notable, so the acid test here is surely the GNG of WP:N. I don't think it makes any difference to the question of notability, but this city council has some sixty employees, which is more than most of the single-tier municipalities in Europe have. Moonraker (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2015 May 14.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Wiltshire Council and Salisbury Journal are significant independent coverage. (By the way, English city and town councils typically have some unitary authority powers delegated to them.) --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep As per all above the council elections has significant reliable sources and coverage, which both serve as main merits to keep this article on Wikipedia. Wiltshire is also a unitary authority, so elections in the county are in fewer numbers than other counties. JAG  UAR   21:02, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a note to all the claims above about reliable sources, we only actually have a single reference that meets the requirements for WP:N, and that is to a local newspaper; Wiltshire Council is not an independent source as it was that council that actually carried out the election. Number   5  7  00:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion. My opinion is that Wiltshire Council carried out the election on behalf of the City Council, and so is more than independent enough to establish notability and to write a neutral and balanced article. Wiltshire Council doesn't have an obvious vested interest in the existence of the city council, and the returning officer, as a county employee, is required by law to be independent of the political concerns of the city council candidates. We are unlikely to find a third source, as there isn't another newspaper in the area, but I contend that these are enough to write a verifiable article. (Don't forget that all election articles rely on the returning officer for the results: 3rd party sources don't include the actual counts in their fact checks.) Government election result articles should never be brought to AfD, but merely merged into the parent article, Salisbury City Council, if you don't think we can maintain a separate article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Election notices at all levels (including those for parliamentary elections) are hosted on local authority web sites, and in this case they are on Wiltshire Council's. If Wiltshire Council is the publisher, then it is a source independent of the subject of the article. However, the actual publisher of every election notice is the Returning Officer, who is a public official appointed under the Representation of the People Act which applies in each case, and I should have thought that he or she is both a reliable source and one independent of the office-holders elected and the authorities or parliaments they are elected to. If not, we are in hot water and might as well send for Mr Mugabe. Moonraker (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course Wiltshire Council is highly likely to be a reliable source, but as they are the body that carried out the election (and employ the returning officer) they are clearly not independent of the subject. Number   5  7  13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am really struggling with your logic, Number   5  7 . A source is either reliable or not, and in this case the sources you are questioning are the official notices relying on a named person who states the information in them, published by the Returning Officer, and not by the person or body who pays him for carrying out his duties. I think you mean it's possible that Wiltshire Council is not independent of the Returning Officer, but that isn't the issue here, which is whether the notices published by the Returning Officer are independent of Salisbury City Council, and I am at a loss to see in what way they aren't. Moonraker (talk) 03:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article isn't about Salisbury City Council though, it's about an election to Salisbury City Council (and the elections are run by Wiltshire Council). Number   5  7  10:25, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Goodness me. As it happens, elections are not run by local authorities, they are run by Returning Officers, who employ temporary staff who mostly come from local authorities, banks, and building societies. You might do better to argue that the Returning Officers' notices are primary sources, and that secondary sources are better, although as a matter of law a Returning Officer's notice is considered so definitive that it can be relied on as evidence in any court, so it would be odd if Wikipedia were to treat it as suffering from some form of conflict of interest. Of course, a huge number of Returning Officers' publications are relied on as sources in Wikipedia articles,  Number   5  7, and you would have a lot of work to do in challenging them in all such articles. Are you pursuing this argument anywhere else on Wikipedia, or only here as a debating point? Moonraker (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Elections are run by local authorities (I have been involved in them either as a polling clerk or a counter for the past 5-10 years so have seen for myself). And again, I am not saying they are not reliable sources (what part of "Wiltshire Council is highly likely to be a reliable source" do you not understand?); what I am saying is that they are not independent of the topic of the article. The issue is that there is only one source in this article that meets WP:N, which to me suggests that the topic is not notable. Number   5  7  15:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Might it help either of you reading WP:N; Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article? Graemp (talk) 16:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to have misunderstood: I am talking about WP:N applying to the article itself, not to the contents of the page; WP:N requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Number   5  7  16:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Number  5  7, I don't think you understand what a local authority is. As a corporate body it has various ways of taking decisions and acts through employees or contractors. Local authorities do not take decisions about the running of elections, Returning Officers do. As a matter of law they do not act on behalf of anyone and they do not take their orders from anyone except parliament (via the Representation of the People Acts). Apart from that, the Returning Officer for Wiltshire is entirely separate from Salisbury City Council and independent of it, and he is not the subject of the article. May I come back to my question, are you pursuing this argument against relying on these statutory sources for election results anywhere else on Wikipedia? Moonraker (talk) 13:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that I worked in local government for almost a decade, I'm fully aware of what a local authority is. Rather than keep casting aspersions on my knowledge of this subject without having any idea who I am or what my experience is, it would be appreciated if you could concentrate on the actual discussion.
 * What I am really having trouble with here is how you cannot understand the basic fact that the organisation (or person if you insist on having it your way) organising the election cannot be considered an independent source in an article about the election. The fact that the returning officer is entirely separate from Salisbury City Council is wholly irrelevant to this argument as this article is about the election, not the council.
 * And no, I am not pursuing this argument elsewhere on Wikipedia. As I clearly stated above, there is no problem with using these sources; the issue is that if these are the only sources (or if there are very few others), then the subject is unlikely to meet WP:N Number   5  7  20:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of sourcing is an important one, but not that important for an AfD discussion. I think No.57 brought the issue here primarily because of a question about notability which is clearly an AfD concern. We might have been helped on this matter if someone had flagged up an example of a similar article being created, retained or deleted. Given no previous as guidance, I don't think the article ought to be deleted when there is a clear consensus so far to keep. Graemp (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Salisbury City Council. The Council itself may be notable, but the individual election results for an individual election are not. I don't think I have ever seen any local election get separate Wikipedia articles for each of its elections; IMO that kind of coverage should reserved for elections at the state, provincial, or national level. --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In seeking to assess the notability of this article, having the perspective of a specialist Wiltshire editor is very useful, as is a perspective from an editor who specialises in UK municipal elections. The perspective of an editor specialising in USA subject matter, is going to be less useful, particularly if they admit to never having seen any individual local election articles. Graemp (talk) 19:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with that; a Wiltshire-based editor may be biased towards events in their own backyard and believe they are more important than they really are. More importantly, the idea that an American editor is less able to comment on a British election article is the thin edge of a disturbing wedge that we should avoid at all costs. Number   5  7  21:51, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that an editor with a greater understanding of the subject area is more likely to have a biased view, in fact I would expect the opposite. As for your comment about an American editor, the nationality of the editor should be irrelevant and I don't think it helps for you to accuse another editor of being nationalistic when they wern't. What is important is an editor's area of speciality. Editor MelanieN concluded by saying "coverage should [be] reserved for elections at the state, provincial, or national level." This is not very helpful in an England-related deletion discussion, (which is how this AfD has been tagged) because in England there are neither states nor provinces. Thus MelanieN's declared position for elections in England would seem to be that there should be no separate articles for elections in England below national level. Graemp (talk) 06:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not about have an understanding of the subject matter; a "specialist Wiltshire editor" (as you put it) may not understand elections at all, but if they are focussed on all things Wiltshire, they may lose a sense of perspective. This sort of thing often happens with football articles, where an editor specialising in a certain area (eg. non-League or Women's football) may fail to appreciate that in the wider scheme of things, their subject matter is not actually notable.
 * I wasn't accusing you of being nationalistic, but your comments do seem to infer that people should stick to things related to their own countries. Number   5  7  11:30, 23 May 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.