Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LSUC Bencher Election 2011

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LSUC Bencher Election 2011

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

I believe there's no dispute that the LSUC is a notable organization, but an article about the election of its Board of Directors (which is what the "benchers" are) is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. The article is an example of what Wikipedia is not and does not meet the general principles of WP:Notability. For the most part, a routine election of an organization's board of directors is of minor, if any, importance outside the organization and is really a matter of internal corporate governance and administration. The only sources for the article are the LSUC's own website, while the "further reading" consists of blog posts of little interest outside the legal community. The article itself is simply an opening statement that the LSUC election will be held in 2011, followed by a list of all the canidates. This is not supposed to be a directory or a data-dump. Agent 86 (talk) 09:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly inside politics. The organization is notable but the election was not. Needs reliable sources that are independent of the organization that actually care enough to cover it with any significance. Fails the WP:GNG. Vcessayist (talk) 02:08, 7 October 2012 (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.