Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tamworth Council election, 2003


 * 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. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Tamworth Council election, 2003

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Does not seem to be notable enough for elections. Article is year specific for a local election. Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. All elections are notable to some degree. If a larger article is created later covering a larger timeframe, then it could be merged.--Dmol (talk) 09:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "To some degree"... Indeed, but is the degree up to par with Wikipedia's standards? Right now there that they could be merged to (Tamworth_local_elections), but that would not require the merger of everything, just the outcome. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * My below argument is a copy of the one I have put on the 2008 AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been a number of AFD's of local elections in the United Kingdom and none of them have resulted in deletion. Examples include Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008 and Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003. We have always considered these elections as meeting the notability guidelines with sufficient coverage to write articles on them. Indeed I can point to articles such as Lichfield Council election, 1999, Redditch Council election, 2002 and Wyre Forest Council election, 2004 which have been on the front page. Consisentency requires we keep these or delete them all, otherwise we have a situation where one council is deleted and another similar one is kept. Multiple articles have been created on the most recent 2011 elections - see United Kingdom local elections, 2011 showing many editors agree we should have these articles. Davewild (talk) 11:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep has 56 subcategories, all full of pages akin to this - local elections by year in varia boroughs, counties and councils. They survive notable and WP:ONEVENT because they are lists. The list of common outcomes for Politicians mentions campaign candidates and hopefuls who fail, and directs that if they are not notable for an article by themselves, then they go into a list of candidates for that election.  --Whiteguru (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - election results should always be kept as long as they are verifiable. --Anthem of joy (talk) 11:21, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I have expanded the Tamworth Council election, 2008 article showing how these article can meet the notability guideline through significant coverage in reliable sources. Davewild (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Nicely done political science about a local election. The election itself is clearly the subject of independent coverage. The compilation of election data is not regarded as the bad sort of "Original Research" banned by WP policy, nor should it be. The election may be limited in scope, but Wikipedia is not paper, after all, and there's no rational reason to limit the encyclopedia's scope by failing to use such admittedly esoteric historical work such as this. The page is a credit to Wikipedia, worthy of emulation. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Since this is one of a series of like challenges, this will be copied-and-pasted where applicable.
 * 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.