Deletion of Windsor municipal election, 1991

Comment: Whether it's sourced or not isn't the issue, it's whether it meets our guidelines ().  Is it notable who the mayor is?  Yes, of course.  Is it really notable how many votes he/she got?  In every local election in history?  Probably not, I'd say. Apart from the mayor, you've got an election between (usually) non-notable people.  That doesn't sound encyclopedic to me.  Furthermore
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Elections to public office clearly meet the  test of being covered by two or more reliable sources; and if people want further reasons beyond , then consider that  elections are one of the defining aspects of any democratic system. My only regret about this article   is that there are not more articles on elections.  For goodness sake, when we have zillions of articles on video games and the characters therein, and plenty of precedent for keeping them, why on earth is an election in a major city not  an obvious keep?Per Cleland, there is a broader policy issue here, because this AfD is clearly being used to set a precedent: public bodies have a wide range of powers and significance, so it is very hard to set an objective threshold for inclusion. Do we include only nationwide elections? I so, we lose elections to state legislatures in the United States. So maybe we decide to include them ... but if we include state elections in Delaware (pop 843,000), it would be bizarre to exclude elections to the City Council in Birmingham, England (pop 1.1million).  ''If'' someone want to create a guideline on which elections are notable, then open discussions on such a guideline, but don't do it on an ad-hoc basis, and don't compare the readily-verifiable election results of a major city with those of a place where verifiability is problematic. If there are any improperly-sourced articles, deal with them by , not by trying to eliminate articles which ''are'' well-sourced
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: I'm not sold on the idea that ''municipal'' elections (as opposed to "local councils", whatever those are - counties? Rural areas? Surely not cities) are by definition notable, but this article is attributed to multiple independent reliable sources, so it passes  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Attribution (WP:ATT||WP:N)

Comment: this is an article about elections for people who fail , that is, fall short of the state/provincial division standard (however ridiculous that may be in comparing The Comoros to China). As Windsor is a substantial city I'm OK with their mayor having an article per "attention in the media" politician loopholes, but not councillors, so an article on the election is very dubious. #DIR|Wikipedia is not a gazetteer or directory. Particularly since local political articles tend to attract less rigorous editing and vandalism oversight, I feel these will be a magnet for potential  violations -- I shudder to think of the crap that could be written just for the last couple of city council elections in my city
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:BIO||WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: Elections usually have some stories which would keep this kind of article from being as dull as it currently is. A few paragraphs of narrative about the election issues and events would be nice. Keeping |due weight in mind, we should emphasize the final results and the major news stories, and not give undue publicity to people who didn't get much attention
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)