Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windsor municipal election, 1991
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
— User:BrownHairedGirl, 10:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:N||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)