Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors of Schaffhausen

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 merge to Schaffhausen#Politics. Sandstein 09:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Schaffhausen[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a list of mayors of a tiny little town in Switzerland. Fails WP:LISTN which requires sources that discuss the subject as a group. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 04:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schaffhausen#Politics. Geschichte (talk) 11:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Schaffhausen. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:00, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Schaffhausen is a small town whose mayors wouldn't meet WP:NPOL just for being mayors — the only three people here who do have articles all have them for some other reason besides having been mayor of Schaffhausen, such as going on to hold office at the national level, and completely unsourced lists of mostly non-notable people aren't the kind of content we should be retaining. (Unsourced content shouldn't even really be retained in the town's article either, but at the very least it definitely can't stand alone as an independent article without sources.) I don't have a strong personal preference as to whether it gets merged or just deleted, so count me as support for whichever one ends up leading the consensus, but it just can't be kept in this form. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bearcat this isnt just some random town, its the capitol of the the Canton of Schaffhausen (eg State/Province in North America) and has a history going back almost 1000 years. Also it does not seem to be an argument in good faith to say that the list is unsourced, as most of these are easy to source and most of them have articles in the Historical Dictionary of Switzerland which would make them notable for Wikipedia. --hroest 18:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A town being the capital of something is entirely irrelevant to whether its mayors clear WP:NPOL or not — being the mayor of a provincial, state or cantonal capital does not inherently make a person more special than the mayor of another town of equivalent size that isn't also a capital of something. And it also isn't my job to assume that sources probably exist — it's job of the sources to be in the article already, not my job to idly speculate about what other sources might theoretically exist beyond what anybody with actual access to the necessary resources has ever been arsed to show. Bearcat (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am just asking for WP:GOODFAITH and I think each of these people is actually notable, I looked them up in HDS and many of them have an entry: [1] [2] are just the first few. Just because only a few of them have articles now does not mean that these are the only notable people. --hroest 15:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Schaffhausen#Politics or history. keep --hroest 18:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found encyclopedic articles or full biographies on a majority of the people listed, I think that a list of notable people is also notable especially as it would actually be a distraction in the main article about Schaffhausen. These articles are in the HLS for the majority of the listed people (8 out of the first 13 people). --hroest 00:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced that that is an encyclopedia (at least not a reliable one). According to [3], "The HLS corrects and updates its articles on an ongoing basis. The HLS gratefully accepts the relevant references with source and / or literature references." and "Unfortunately, the HLS cannot conduct research itself. For further information, we therefore refer you to the literature cited in the article." So, it looks like the entries are just based on local history books and that does not establish notability.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, it's a national dictionary which seems pretty clearly reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rusf10 it is the most comprehensive and authoritative encyclopedia on Swiss History, see Historical Dictionary of Switzerland. It is using a scientific approach and is basically *the* encyclopedia on Switzerland and is funded by the Swiss government and has an editorial team of 40 people. See [4]. I think anybody knowledgeable in Swiss history could attest to that. How is it not reliable, it is written by experts and scientists and has a high level of editorial curation? I dont understand your point at all, they simple describe their guidelines and that they will take input from readers but will not perform further research *for you* (for their readers). Maybe that got lost in translation? Or maybe I am misunderstanding your point? see "Rückmeldungen zu Artikeln". Inclusion in a selective and curated encyclopedia is generally a good sign of notability, isnt it? --hroest 20:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The argument is basically that because the Lexikon accepts information from the public, that it's a self-published source. This is clearly incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 21:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a good and intelligent list. It needs expanding with more explanation, but then, that is beyond my scope. I also think each of these people are notable, therefore my vote is keep. Greetings --Huligan0 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Merging can be a form of keeping, or retaining information if you will. I cannot see the need for a standalone list when it fits so nicely into the merge target I suggested. Geschichte (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have a few faults with the nomination, specifically trying to claim the Swiss historical dictionary isn't reliable and referring to Schaffhausen as a "tiny town." However, we don't typically allow standalone articles for lists of mayors of towns. While it's not impossible for an exception to be made if the article's good enough, this particular article would clearly fit neatly into the parent article, and upmerging would lose no information. SportingFlyer T·C 20:37, 28 April 2021 (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.