Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral history of Imelda Marcos

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. Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Imelda Marcos

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

Content forks of various Phillippine election pages created by a SPA. Pincrete (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essentially all of this information is already included in Imelda Marcos's article, and as far as I'm aware it is not normal to create Electoral History articles for members of the Filipino House of Representatives. Alsee (talk) 09:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This content will only clutter the main article and should not be returned there.Imeldific (talk) 10:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

nb Imeldific is the article creator Pincrete (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I !voted delete on a previous content fork about Imelda Marcos, but while I agree with Pincrete (not Necrothesp) to the extent that content would clutter the article if merged, my take is that is why this is not a content fork. It clearly outlines her status as a perpetual candidate and is handy for those who care. In this case, she is not merely a politician running for office, she is a powerful figure regardless of any office she seeks. Montanabw^(talk) 02:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not me! I haven't commented. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops! Old eyes! Copied the wrong signature, sorry! Montanabw ^(talk) 08:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My position actually is that this kind of detail is already on the various 'election' pages and the summary on, or includable on the individual page. Pincrete (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No more detail is required than is already given on the main article. Deleting the article would be best... User:Spacecowboy420
Delete as there's nothing to suggest its own convincing article and is best simply deleted as the current information exists. SwisterTwister talk 23:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Separate "electoral history of..." articles are not created for every individual person who ever held any political office; they're permitted only in extremely rarefied circumstances on the order of presidents, prime ministers and the very, very occasional exception for a legislator who's been in office so long that the election results templates would overwhelm the article's body text. Imelda Marcos's article, however, is not so long as to require spinouts like this, and six elections are not enough to make something like this necessary for an assembly member. The main article can handle this. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2016 (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.