2021 Douglas borough council election: No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG.    Stats only page about a local election.   No source that is anywhere near GNG;  they are just stats sources.  North8000 ( talk ) 14:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep we routinely keep all local election results from everywhere, providing they can be verified.  We are going to get into a very weird situation if we try to say that the democratic result of an election isn't notable.  JMWt ( talk ) 16:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Do you mean real world notable or wp:notable?   Different things.... .WP:Notable emphasizes in-depth coverage suitable to create an enclyclopedia article from.  WP:Not describes lots of things that are real-world notable which are not wp:notable.   Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 18:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events , Politics ,  and United Kingdom .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment In response to JMWt I'm not sure that's exactly right.  Here are some recent AfDs closed as delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Bellevue mayoral election (city in Nebraska, US with population of 64,000), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Zushi mayoral election (2nd nomination) (city in Japan with  population of 58,000) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Palmerston City Council election (city in Northern Territory, Australia with population of 38,000).  AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] And one from late last year: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2003 Oakville municipal election (city in Canada with a population of 214,000) AusLondonder ( talk ) 19:53, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Ok well that's fair, I was wrong.  Seems like something we should discuss in more depth as there would appear to be issues of systematic bias - particularly given that there are many of these pages.  JMWt ( talk ) 20:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Routine coverage of a random election is not wikipedia worthy.  Content should be transferred to an article for the council that is notable.  Macktheknifeau ( talk ) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment At one point I did a AFD on a "middle of the road" example (area covering 109,000 people)  of one of theses and requested a wider, longer running and more thorough discussion to provide guidance on these types of situations.    It was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1996 Chorley Borough Council election and the result was delete.  Sincerely, North8000 ( talk ) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete The number of local elections in the world is astronomical.  We should not have routine articles on elections of small towns unless there is more substantial outside coverage on it beyond expected results.  Reywas92 Talk 15:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per WP:MILL , WP:OUTCOMES , and WP:NPOL .  Enough said.  See above.  Bearian ( talk ) 17:19, 30 March 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: delete