1981 Lancashire County Council election : A combination of wp:Not for a stats-only article (and inherently subject) combined with no evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.    There have been in-depth discussions on articles of this type  which led to deletion.  North8000 ( talk ) 20:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and England .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep An election for a second-tier authority in a large country is clearly going to be notable, and particularly one for one of England largest counties that saw a massive swing from the ruling party to the opposition.  I don't have access to newspapers at the time, but I would be amazed if there wasn't similar national/regional coverage to that given to the reverse happening in 2009.  [1] [2] [3] I'm also not aware of any other AfDs on elections of this tier of government that have resulted in deletion; the only previous AfD I could find on county council elections resulted in a unanimous keep.  Number 5 7 08:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] @ Number 57 : Being the (requested) unusually thorough discussion, I consider Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election to be informative not only for the delete result but also for the extensive discussion and wider participation.  Do you think that the election in this current AFD is more impactful or of a larger scale?    Or likely to have GNG sources to produce an article vs. "stats only"  If so, could you expand on that?   Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 15:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yes – Chorley is a third tier (district) authority, below Lancashire as a second tier.  And even that Chorley outcome was an outlier.  All other AfDs on elections for third tier authorities that I can find (excluding AfDs on elections that had not yet taken place, a couple of which resulted in deletion due to WP:TOOSOON , but were subsequently recreated after the election took place) resulted in keep outcomes: 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 .  Number 5 7 18:35, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] While I don't go with "there are others like it" argument, I think that the other two aspects that you talked about (level/size and resultant bigger impact) make this a special case.  North8000 ( talk ) 18:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (with templates calling for improvements/more cites!) Regional significance to UK.  Combined with historic swing to Labour - there will be a boatload of coverage for anyone with a subscription to newspapers.com.  Hemmers ( talk ) 16:08, 17 April 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (with improvement templates) The article pertains to an election which has significance in the county of Lancashire, a large geographic area with a significant population, as well as in the wider context of the relevant local elections in that year, important to guaging the popularity of this party or that.  This data is, without this article, difficult to find and even harder to gain insight from, the Wiki format providing helpful data at a glance for any Lancastrian interested in the historic composition of that council, or any interested party looking more in depth at the 1981 locals.  Previous discussions have unanimously kept similar articles and established the Elections Centre is a sufficient source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1973 Lancashire County Council election .  Djack1770 ( talk ) 10:58, 18 April 2024 (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.

Discussion outcome: keep