Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Lansing City Council election

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. RL0919 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Lansing City Council election

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails to meet criteria for notability. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SecretName101 (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - no substantive rationale provided for deletion. The article includes multiple sources and the nominator hasn't provided any substantive policy-based reason why they should be ignored. No evidence any portion of WP:BEFORE was undertaken. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:03, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - City council election for the 5th largest city in a state just does not meet GNG. Sounder Bruce 05:49, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? Its arguable that primarily local coverage means this doesn't have the sort of WP:IMPACT required to be notable outside of its local community, but that hasn't been suggested, and that doesn't have anything to do with WP:GNG. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:37, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ☢️ Radioactive 🎃 (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So you really do not believe this is impactful in a way to justify an article, but you argue to keep it because you are an insufferable rules lawyer who wants to make others offenders for a word because they did not use the right buzz words to properly invoke the issue. You admit that you really deep down know this is not notable, but you insist on keeping it because you want to teach others a lesson on invoking the right terms and buzz words. This is a downright horrible way to build an encyclopedia, and it is what has lead to Wikipedia being weighed down by Dedhamania and several other unjustified localist obsessions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I suggested there was an argument to be made about impact, and I'm happy to have that discussion. But what was presented was references to policy that clearly don't apply in this instance. But your personal attacks are a nice contribution. The onus is on the nominator to present a valid reason for deletion. None was presented. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the onus is on you to demonstrate that this is actually a notable thing. I am going to call out bad arguments when I see them, and yours were clearly that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we do not decide to keep or delete articles on the merits of the argument of the nominator. We decide to delete or keep articles because they do or do not meet inclusion criteria. This has no reference to the persuasize or literary capabilities of the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell if you're trying to be deliberately obtuse or disingenuous, but your personal-attacks-first hot-take suggests the latter. And its out of character given what I've seen from you in the past. You know full well that's not what was being suggested. But if you genuinely think that WP:BEFORE is a hand-wave serving suggestion rather than policy, there's not much more to discuss. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Virtually every election everywhere will get indepth coverage in multiple reliable sources. This in and of itself is not enough to make an election notable. I live in Michigan and follow the news fairly regularly, and have heard absolutely nothing about this election. This election is no more notable than any other city council election in Lansing, and there is no reason at all we should have articles on all such elections. Things like this is where Wikipedia starts getting too close to the map makers who made maps the size of the country they were mapping who were mocked by Lewis Carol and Jorge Borges. We are not a newspaper, and not everything reported in newspapers is of encyclopedic value. A general article on the city council of Lansing may be justified, but articles on each election are not, and there is no reason to have one on this election and not past ones other than presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although I hardly think the contrary position "insufferable" or "downright horrible"). Local elections generally don't merit an article unless they had a geographically and temporally broad impact, and neither of those seem to be present here. Ultimately, notability requires meeting the GNG and WP:NOT, and a minor local election such as this one fails WP:NOTNEWS. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:08, 11 August 2021 (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.