Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawartha Lakes municipal election, 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 delete. Article has been incubated to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Kawartha Lakes municipal election, 2010 for now. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kawartha Lakes municipal election, 2010[edit]

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

If none of these people meet WP:POLITICIAN, then an article about them should faild AfD. Woogee (talk) 21:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've had similar discussions in the past, and the consensus was to keep these articles. As to WP:Politician, I believe mayors of cities are considered notable, and this being a medium sized city in Ontario, the mayor would be notable enough for an article. -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a similar debate we had 4 years ago. I stand corrected, there was no consensus, but the page was kept: [1]. Note, Norfolk County is a slightly smaller municipality. Also, recent debates: [2], [3] -- Earl Andrew - talk 22:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a county/city election of a small/medium polity in one specific year, with no major issues that generate coverage? I'd doubt this is notable ipso facto. If there is significant coverage of it somewhere, that would be different of course. OK. I searched news with the keywords '"Kawartha Lakes" election 2010' and got a single hit relating to this election. (the others were all, I think, Federal) David V Houston (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There will be more coverage of the election as additional candidates are announced. Having one article per city or county is easier to maintain and edit than a single article covering several cities or counties that would be inconveniently large. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure ONE per city would make some sense. One per city per election? Personally, I don't think so. And if the election hasn't happened, should the article be up yet? Wiki is not news.David V Houston (talk) 23:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 74,000 is quite large enough a municipality to qualify for treatment this way; we usually do list every such election separately. It's a matter of style, but there is no reason not to follow our convention. DGG ( talk ) 00:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℳøℕø 00:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without coverage in reliable sources there is nothing to write about here. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alberta is also holding municipal elections this year. I have set the municipality notability standard for list inclusion at a population of 8,000, which includes all the cities. And the individual article notability standard as one that has too much information to be included in the list, this may include a list of school trustees, candidate summaries, or a scandal/controversy; currently there are only three that meet this, but the number will rise as the official candidate lists are released, as seen in 2007. I was just having a conversation with a resident of Lethbridge (population 85,492), and we decided that only the metropolitans of Edmonton and Calgary could have councillor articles, the other cities could have only mayor articles. 117Avenue (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per David V Houston. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason, those wanting to keep have failed to supply evidence of significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Nothing to say other than that the election will happen; no coverage in reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now as CRYSTAL, but when election information becomes apparent, recreate. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article makes no claim of notability for this future event. Abductive (reasoning) 02:50, 3 May 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.