Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral results for the district of Burwood

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. Consensus based on 1) Electoral results are generally appropriate for inclusion and 2) Splitting necessary due to size (non-admin closure) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results for the district of Burwood[edit]

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

extremely narrow, non encylopedic article, using only primary sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. These articles are hardly non-encyclopedic - they're an incredibly useful repository for these historical results. I'm also not aware of any policy that prohibits lists such as these using primary sources, since in this case it's obviously the most reliable way to go - an electoral commission is hardly the same as a primary source in a biography, for example. Nominating one article in isolation is also an odd move - there are literally hundreds of these articles. Frickeg (talk) 08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've been through this before here and here. Miracle Pen (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I had the exact same thought when I saw this :) Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a bizarre nomination - of course it's encyclopedic for an article about an electoral district to include its past results, and to split them off into a separate article when it's a district that's been around for sixty years. It's also strange to critique it for using primary sources: what other source would you expect for election results but the electoral commission? Rebecca (talk) 12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Frickeg and Rebecca. Also, "non encylopedic" is a poor argument to make, see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC. At the very worst it should be merged back to the Electoral district of Burwood article, but that would bloat that article (the reason these sub-articles were created in the first place...). See Wikipedia:Article size#Lists, tables and summaries. Jenks24 (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, legitimate split-off article. Including all electoral results in that article would be a nightmare. As for the "extremely narrow" comment, part of Wikipedia's great strength is the ability for it to cover very narrow or obscure topics in great detail. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - Legitimate sub-topic that would clutter the main article. This is, in essence, a form of a list. Carrite (talk) 01:34, 9 November 2011 (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.