- 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 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Liz Read! Talk! 07:25, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- 2006 Norfolk County municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a non-notable local election in a municipality with under 100k people. Since the previous AfD in 2006, our notability standards around this sort of topic have gotten much stricter. Elli (talk | contribs) 04:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Do we actually have a policy with a 100k cut off? If so, there are quite a few articles that should be deleted. But I think, the true measure of notability is reliable sources, which this article still needs. If we do end up deleting the article, I vote to merge the information with 2006 Ontario municipal elections.-- Earl Andrew - talk 11:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree with all of what Earl Andrew has noted here. Could certainly use more sources (which I'd be more than happy to try and find) but, if the move is to delete, it should be merged with the 2006 Ontario municipal elections page. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 20:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The admissibility of an article about a municipal election hinges less on the population of the municipality per se, and more on the depth and quality of the sourcing that can or cannot be provided to support the article with. It is, of course, far likelier that large cities will have the necessary level of sourcing than it is that small towns will, but it ultimately hinges more on the sourcing than the population per se. (There are, for instance, cities over 100K in 2006 Ontario municipal elections which do not have standalone articles linked separately from the results tabled in the main article.) We can, of course, hold onto the mayoral numbers in the parent article, but I don't see a lot of value in keeping all the ward councillor races there if no other place in the "Municipalities with 25,000 to 100,000 people" section (which is where Norfolk would go) has any ward councillor races recorded there. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: It's just a chart with numbers, over and over. There is no critical discussion of the candidates, nor any indication why this election was more significant than others. We don't need a running tally for every municipal election in Ontario. Oaktree b (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The whole municipality only has (as of today) around 65 000 residents. This is not a major part of the province (not an economic centre, not a large tourist area), it just exists... This isn't Toronto or Ottawa. It's a fraction of the province that lives here. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have deprodded 2000 Norfolk County municipal election, 2003 Norfolk County municipal election and 2010 Norfolk County municipal election. I propose that the scope of this discussion be broadened to include these other similar articles. ~Kvng (talk) 23:54, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Local municipal elections are not not notable per se. But, as Bearcat describes, we want to see how or why the election was notable, and it is more likely that a municipality with a larger population size would show the national or international coverage that elevates the election above other elections (as this project is not a database of election results). In theory, a US president's first campaign for a municipal office might retrospectively become notable, or a former prime minister losing an election for a local office might make the election more notable than most (see the fictional case of Welcome to Mooseport). --Enos733 (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see consensus. It's not a good sign though when those advocating Keep say that there need to be better sources. What thoughts are there about the proposed Merger? And, no, after 5 days of an open AFD, it's too late to add additional articles to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to 2006 Ontario municipal elections. Oppose Kvng's proposal to expand scope of the AfD to include other elections. Unlike virtually any other future event, local elections can rise to WP:GNG with zero predictability. I feel that we need to make case-by-case determinations on whether a particular election's sourcing reach WP:NEVENT thresholds (specifically WP:GEOSCOPE and WP:DIVERSE). Cheers, Last1in (talk) 14:19, 24 October 2023 (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.