Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electoral results for the Division of Darwin

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The result was nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral results for the Division of Darwin[edit]

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

~~Pointless; nothing here that shouldn't be in main Division of Darwin article. Orange Mike | Talk 01:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strong keep as creator. A little more research would have revealed that this is part of a 209-page series covering all Australian federal electorates. The pages almost invariably become far too long for the main electorate article, and it was agreed a long time ago (scroll down a bit) to handle this in this way. Frickeg (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Frickeg (talk) 01:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the nominator is proposing a merge (and that appears to be the gist of his deletion rationale) then this discussion should be closed and a merge proposed on the relevant talk page. It may be that a merge is the most appropriate option but AfD discussions should not be used as short cuts to force a merge. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep per Frickeg. A single AfD for one article is not the way to object to 209 articles. Either all Federal electorates should have articles like this one or none of them should. I think all of them should. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn - although I still think it's silly, since there is no other justification for separate articles on electoral divisions than the inclusion of just this kind of data. What else do you write about: the gerrymandering? --Orange Mike | Talk 02:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, leave as is? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:04, 16 November 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.