Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peel 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 no consensus. It seems here that there are two different grounds on what should happen with this article. Both sides have a few strong points, and a few weak points. However, it doesn't seem to be weighted in one way or the other, so this is a NC closure. (X! · talk) · @755 · 17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peel Region municipal elections, 2010

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

simple placeholder article does no good. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm still working on this... Plus, I found your comment on my user page to be very rude, and uncalled for. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response. And what comment was that exactly? Rasputin72 (talk) 04:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Have a nice evening". Your sarcasm was unnecessary. And if it wasn't intended to be sarcasm, I hope you understand why that it would be conveyed as such. AfD debates always ruin my evenings. -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That was not intended to be sarcasm, but a friendly coda to my message. I don't see that using wikipedia and having a nice evening are mutually exclusive activities. Rasputin72 (talk) 04:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is putting a damper an un otherwise nice evening... Anyways, I would like to see some debate here. It's no longer just a placeholder. Why should it now still be deleted? -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk) 08:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- 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) 15:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTDIR. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed", nor of everything that has happened or is going to happen. There are, literally, millions of municipalities on the planet, many of which will have an election this year. There is no inherent right to use Wikipedia to keep tabs on what's happening in one's own backyard. The elections in the Peel Region of Ontario are no more notable than those in, say, Franklin County, Nebraska. Mandsford (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes they are, Peel Region as over 1 million people. Plus, we have decided on Wikipedia that municipal elections are notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it in WP:ELECTION. Please let me know which policy you're referring to about inherent notability. As noted, there have been millions of municipal elections over the years, so it would be crazy to count those for automatic entitlement. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my country, we have 604 districts each with a population of 1 million and each undergoing its own local election every 5 years. I don't think we should keep adding articles for all of them every 5 years. These elections are not notable to anyone in the rest of the world. Also, for "we have decided on Wikipedia that...^{[citation needed]}". --Geeteshgadkari (talk) 10:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Mayoral elections. 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) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELECTION pertains to internal Wikipedia process, not to determining the notability or non-notability of outside-world elections. Bearcat (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/York Region municipal elections, 2010. - SimonP (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is redundant because Ontario municipal elections, 2010 covers the same ground. I also note that there's no article for Peel Region municipal elections, 2006, which would be redundant in view that the subject is covered by Ontario municipal elections, 2006. PK T(alk) 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's the better way to handle this type of information. It's not that I'm against municipal elections per se, or that I think the results need to be suppressed. As part of an article about the province, state, region, that's okay. Mandsford (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I want to prevent that page from getting to lengthy. Ontario has a lot of municipalities. -- Earl Andrew - talk 03:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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) 02:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.