Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prescot North (ward)

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The result was Nomination Withdrawn - Procedural Keep. Nominator withdrawal due to a wider discussion being requested to take place on the whole topic for which these articles fall within. This withdrawal is without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Sparkle1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prescot North (ward)[edit]

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

The article and the associated Prescott North Article fail notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Only these two wards from Knowsley Borough have separate articles. The Town Council results were for some reason included in the main text of the Knowsley Borough Council election results for 2019 but in a hidden capacity. These individual council wards do not warrant their own individual inclusion unless they themself are notable. The only sources on the page of from the Government creating the ward, the census data and Knowsley Borough Council. Wikipedia is not a place for the indiscriminate collection of information and this is an example of Wikipedia being used to indiscriminately collect information on one pair of local government electoral areas. Secondly, these articles also fail on the grounds that only their creation and not every ward in Knowsley Borough is a form of POV pushing. Why only these two wards and not the rest. Wikipedia is very clear on POV there must be as neutral a POV as possible. Which means in effect it is all wards or no wards unless a specific exemption is carved out under different inclusion criteria. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either unnecessary duplications of other pages on Wikiepida, being individual ward results where the heard results are included in a main article on the local elections, or fail to establish notability in the same or similar ways as described above for Prescott Noth, some are little more than redirects:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep As a quick dive into Category:Wards of England shows, we have articles on local government wards for many districts of the UK. I think a centralised discussion on notability is required rather than one on a specific district. Number 5 7 09:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case why not have the discussion here and expand the articles proposed for deletion to every UK local government electoral area (ward, division etc.) Sparkle1 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A single AfD is an inappropriate venue for a discussion that affects so many articles (possibly into the thousands) because it is highly unlikely to attract the necessary audience to make a decision of such a scale. Number 5 7 14:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to procedurally withdraw this if an appropriate venue can be found that will attract a wide enough audience. I am wary of some wikiprojects generating wide enough discussion. There needs to be a bright line possibility at the end of the discussion and not just a fudged compromise. This is what I am wary of; If there is a fudge with no clear direction. Wikipeida could easily become a repository for information duplication with the information in local election articles, and on individual ward pages and potentially in other places. None of which is good for anyone. There is also the inherent question of are these subdivision of local government notable enough to be on wikipedia at all in the own right. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest holding it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and at a minimum, posting notices posted at WT:E&R, WT:ENGLAND, WT:NIR, WT:SCOTLAND, WT:UK and WT:WALES. As a courtesy, I would also recommend pinging a few specific editors who do a lot of work on ward articles such as Crowsus, Draqueeb or Sionk. Number 5 7 19:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will therefore procedurally close this as there appears to be a more appropriate venue. I shall ping the projects but I am not going to go down the route of individual users as that could be considered canvassing. Also why those editors, simply "doing a lot of " makes their participation in the discussion no more or no less important than any other participants. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton East, Chalkwell (both 2019) and Castle Hill (2018) were kept. Natland was deleted, but that was in 2007. There's no evidence of POV, just that some articles haven't been created yet - similarly there are featured articles about villages, and other villages' articles are only stubs. Peter James (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the necessary wikiproject has been started here Sparkle1 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are not at all boring to locals. I ran workshops here in Montana on how local librarians etc can start articles on their locales and the demand was high. Participants in USA told me that people really care about their neighbors and neighborhoods, and I suggest in UK as well, Keep them. Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 3 April 2020 (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.