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 12:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article on a single minor mayoral election held in Japan earlier this year. No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact. 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 24 per cent. CalendarWatcher (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as on below AFD) 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 an area of over a 200,000 people. If the article cannot be expanded after a time then perhaps a merge into a List of mayoral elections in Minato could be considered but we should certainly keep the content. (The source should certainly be added to the article however for verifiability) Davewild (talk) 09:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Except that not even a minimal attempt 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) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you really believe that this is not verifiable and that sources are not available? I think a note to the article creator would lead to the sources being added to the article, if after a strong attempt has been made no sources are found then I would change my opinion. 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) 14:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the source. --Jonte-- (talk) 15:38, 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? Against triviality? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Minato, Tokyo. If you're going to rais the systemic bias argument, then please point out a comparable article that has been kept about a recent mayoral election in a location (US, GB, etc) where you think that there is no bias. Otherwise, it's equivalent to making an argument that we should be biased in favor of keeping an article just because it's about something that happened in Japan. Mandsford (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • there is a systemic bias here in that people seem to be thinking Minato's population is comparable to that of similar U.S. cities with over 200,000. In reality, the daytime population is over 840,000 (this was in 2000 [1] probably a million by now). If we regard a mayoral election's importance to be based on population (as people seem to be indicating), then this is clearly something that ought to be said. So it's a systemic bias coming from ignorance of population differences between a place like Tokyo and some place in rural America. --C S (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Davewild. A mayor election in a place with more than 200,000 people is definitely encyclopedic, IMO. And since there doesn't seem to be any problem of verifiability anymore I see no reason to delete it. It could however be merged into a List of mayoral elections in Minato like Davewild said, but the content should be kept. --Cattus ^talk 19:42, 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). Also, as the person removing the deletion proposal said, the significance is real. The voter turnout should not be used as a criterion for keeping or deleting articles. As for "No indication whatsoever of wider impact, notability, or historic associations, nor is there even a single source--reliable or otherwise--even attesting to its very existence, let alone impact." -- these are not requirements for Wikipedia articles. Let stubs grow. Wikipedia does not require that articles be born as featured, A, or even B. Wikipedia accepts stubs. Fg2 (talk) 21:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Consensus has shown time and time again that almanac info is worth keeping. Why else do we have articles like those on "towns" with a population of eight? --C S (talk) 01:22, 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} 02:49, 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.