Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The City of Edinburgh Council

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Looking at most of the sources, although they are not perfect, they show definitively notability, and the case made with the Aberdeen City Council is convincing. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 1l2l3k (talk) 19:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC) [reply]

The City of Edinburgh Council[edit]

The City of Edinburgh Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Politics of Edinburgh, as it was before the expansion, which occurred in the last days. The Council determines the politics and there is no reason why there should be two articles, and not one. It just creates confusion. 1l2l3k (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While I understand where you are coming from. However, I think that The City of Edinburgh Council is a major enough organisation that should have its own dedicated article, Aberdeen City Council exists for example. Politics of Glasgow was renamed to Glasgow City Council which I think was a mistake as a lot of useful information was lost. I think there is room for compromise and to have both articles.

The best way to compromise is by improving the article and showing notability. This can be done by putting references on each paragraph. I will consider withdrawing the nomination if I see notability satisfied in a well-referenced article. If you think that has happened, please feel free to ping me or drop me a note in my talk page. Regards! --1l2l3k (talk) 17:42, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this sounds important enough to have its own article. Vorbee (talk) 18:40, 7 August 2018 (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.