Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Region municipal elections, 2010


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

York Region municipal elections, 2010

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Blank "placeholder" article about 9 months premature. Non Notable. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, still working on these pages... And, I'm not sure how an election in an area with 1 million people is not notable, but okay... -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Not premature. Some candidates are already in the running, and municipalities have set up web pages for the election. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions.  - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This is not a national or even a state election. For the rest of the world, it is routine news, not worthy of a permanent article. --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 13:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is actually several elections, all happening on the same day, and having an article such as this allows us to record the names of candidates who may not be individually notable. - Eastmain (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, of course. As per Eastmain. 16:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl Andrew (talk • contribs) 16:26, 10
 * Strong Delete Geeteshgadkari says it best. National and legislative elections are inherently notable, but the precedent of keeping tabs on every mayoral and city council election (or county government election) in the world is revolting to think about.  While the outcome of the local elections in this part of Ontario is important to the author, it is of no more significance than the results of a local election in Charikar or Shijak or Ghardaia or any of the millions of cities on the planet.  One of my favorite sentences from WP:NOT is "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed".  Mandsford (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)January 2010
 * See . While there may not be an actual policy explicitly favouring them, as long as they're referenced city council elections are generally treated as permissible and keepable article topics. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. This article will unquestionably grow over time, and already has useful information. I'd love it if we had articles on elections in Charikar and Shijak, and I look forward to the day we do. I can't comprehend how new content can be considered "revolting." - SimonP (talk) 22:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is redundant because Ontario municipal elections, 2010 covers the same ground. I also note that there's no article for York Region municipal elections, 2006, which would be redundant in view that the subject is covered by Ontario municipal elections, 2006.   PK  T (alk)  00:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given that comparable articles do exist for places in other countries, this isn't delete-worthy solely on the basis of being local. That said, I do wonder if this is the most appropriate and useful organization of it. Do we really need the provincial overview article and city-specific articles and a regional-level omnibus? We should do one of three things: (a) not do individual city-level articles for the municipalities involved here, and list their results only in this article, (b) have the provincial level article link to this article instead of directly providing individual summaries for these municipalities, (c) keep the province and city level articles but ditch this one. No vote yet; just two cents for the pot. Although I may come back with an actual preference later on. Bearcat (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Just to clarify, York Region is the city/local level of government in this area, which is an amalgamation of the former city governments in the region. Ivanvector (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Per Bearcat ... as I understand it, the most pertinent question is whether this material should be (i) kept on one article page, (ii) broken down into several individual pages, or (iii) merged into a larger page dealing with provincial elections. I have no opinion on this question per se, and I think this is the sort of thing we should determine on a case-by-case basis (wherein one key factor is how long the pages are likely to be). For that reason, my vote is to keep the page for now while reserving the option of merging it to a larger page, or splitting it, at some point in the future. CJCurrie (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge: to Ontario municipal elections, 2010. There will be multiple reliable sources covering these events, and there are already a few. DigitalC (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, but make sure that any events on the page are well sourced, and any unsourced speculation is removed. There is plenty of precedent for "future election" articles like this one.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep or Merge to Ontario municipal elections, 2010 as mentioned. However keep in mind that election dates are set by Ontario law, such that we could theoretically create these pages for every future election in the province. I think the threshold here is that there are declared candidates for this one. Ivanvector (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Non-blank, and apt to be come even more non-blank well before the elections, hence is not 9 months premature. Groups of elections are notable, hence notability is not a real issue here.  Collect (talk) 15:28, 18 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.