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. ffm 12:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fujimi mayoral election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Results of a single mayoral election in a small Japanese city this year. No indication that this is significant or historic, nor any suggestion that this could rise above being an almanac entry. Prod tag was removed on grounds that 'an event does not have to have wide impact as long as it has local impact and importance. Elections are generally considered notable in the locations where they exist'. I'd say that's false for a global encyclopaedia generally, and untrue in this particular case, considering voter turn-out was only about 40 per cent. -- CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wikipedia:Five pillars defines wikipedia as including elements of almanacs and elections are one area which we should certainly cover. The content is fully verifiable and I am inclined to think it is notable in line with past precedents at AFD where elections for this level have been kept, especially for a city of over a 100,000 people. I can't read Japanese so cannot tell how much coverage this got but am pretty confident that there is significant coverage in the link provided for notability. If the article cannot be expanded after a time then perhaps a merge into a List of mayoral elections in Fujimi could be considered but we should certainly keep the content. Davewild (talk) 08:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that only a minimal attempt--at best--has been made to verify anything, nor is there the slightest claim of--nor evidence of--said verification verifying anything other than that the election took place. As for your invoking the Five Pillars, 'elements of almanacs' does not mean every element of almanacs. Certainly in your citation you seemingly overlooked 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information...It is not a newspaper or a collection of source documents', which seem to argue against this being the least encyclopaedic, don't you think? --CalendarWatcher (talk)

• I think the sources are fine for verfication, bearing in my mind that we do not require English language sources where they are not available. My quote about the almanac was specifically addressed to the reason you used on the prod and in your deletion reason above. Anyone could use the 'indiscriminate collection of information' to argue for the deletion of any article, this article has an intro which provides context for the results provided. Also at multiple AFDs the community has supported keeping similar articles on elections such as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philadelphia mayoral election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kettering Council election, 2007, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stevenage Council election, 2003 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birmingham Council election, 2008. Davewild (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - to avoid systemic bias. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Systemic bias against what? Triviality? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• List of mayors of Manchester, New Hampshire or any of numerous articles in Category:Mayors by city in the United States are equally trivial. Of course expansion to a fill list of elections would be approprite, but just because it's Japanese doesn't make it inherently less notable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Merge to Fujimi, Saitama. The "systemic bias" argument is a good point, and we should ask whether this would be notable if it were an article about a city in the US, Canada, Britain, Australia, etc.; It looks like a United States city with a comparable (105,000) population would be Norwalk, California. I don't think that the mayoral election in Norwalk, California, would be entitled to its own article either. For the most part, municipal election statistics are of little interest outside of the article about the municipality itself. Mandsford (talk) 15:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I choose not to add it to the citypage is that right now a user can get an overview of all local elections by using the Category:2008 elections in Japan, the overview will be lost if we merge it. --Jonte-- (talk) 17:58, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Davewild. Elections in cities with more than 100 000 people are clearly encyclopedic, IMO. And that seems to be what most other wikipedians think too, seeing as similar articles from the U.K., the U.S. and Canada seem to have been consistently kept. And some on places with even less population than Fujimi. However, I wouldn't oppose a merger to a List of mayoral elections in Fujimi, as long as the content is kept.-Cattus ^talk 19:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep articles on elections. Do not merge into article on municipality. What we might consider is a single article on all elections for a single city. That is, remove "2008" from the title and put future elections in the same article with sections for events. Although I'm not convinced even that consolidation would be necessary, and having separate articles allows cross-categorization (by city, by year). Fg2 (talk) 21:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Almanac entries are fine. Why else do we have articles on little "towns" with a population of eight? Closing admin should also see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minato_mayoral_election,_2008 where many similar comments and arguments are made. --C S (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obivously. We have articles on much less important elections in the UK and the US, so why shouldn't we have this one? —Nightstallion 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the same reasoning I gave for removing the prod. It has been established in the past that people, events, or whatever which are notable within the sphere of their influence qualify for notability here on Wikipedia. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:50, 15 September 2008 (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.