Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002

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 no consensus. Seems to be agreement to oppose this as a multi-nom and that they should instead be AfD'ed individually (perhaps after an RfC clarifying how to evalute notability of this kind of article); relisting has shown no willingness from other people to cast an actual opinion on the nominated articles so I doubt leaving this multi-nom open as it is will lead to anything constructive. (Since the opinions weren't "in favor of keeping the articles" but more "against how the multi-nom was presented", I think no consensus" with NPASR (individually) is the best way to reflect that.) (non-admin closure) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Individual municipal elections for small to mid-size cities and towns are not inherently notable, unless the coverage for them goes beyond WP:ROUTINE local coverage (see the test case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjo mayoral election, 2006).

I am also bundling the following articles from Category:Mayoral elections in Japan (list hatted for length). I excluded any election for a city with a population over 1 million, since I feel those have a better claim to individual notability and thus might be controversial in a bundled nom. I am happy to strike any other individual article that anyone feels has a strong claim to individual notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bundled nominations

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 03:50, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar The nomination says that the names of the articles being considered for deletion are being "hatted for length", but another viewpoint is that hatting the names increases the psychological distant between !voters and the articles being deleted. Below are the normal AfD templates for each of the bundled articles. Unscintillating (talk) 05:44, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed the duplicate links you added. If you disagree with the hatting, un-hat, although I will say that I don't believe it is unusual or out-of-policy for lengthy bundled noms to be hatted to reduce clutter. There is no reason to dump the exact same list of links into the AfD, nearly doubling its size. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:13, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, the nominator didn't remove "duplicate links". Second, the nom has identified no Wikilinks for the nom's beliefs regarding hatting. Third, saying there is "no reason to dump the exact same list of links" is problematic; including (1) for the previously stated fact that this didn't happen; (2) the reason that the nom could have looked at what was being removed instead of assuming what was being removed; (3) the nom could have noticed that in the phrase "normal AfD templates for each of the bundled articles", the word "templates" is plural; (4) the nom could have checked what constitutes "normal AfD templates" by looking at the nomination; and (5) the comment plays IDHT to the comment that "hatting the names increases the psychological distant between !voters and the articles being deleted." Regarding the nom's concern about the size of this AfD, we have virtually unlimited capacity on our servers, see WP:NOTPAPER.
    Hiding the names of the bundled articles doesn't serve the purpose of due process for these contributions. Our policy is to WP:PRESERVE the contributions of our contributors.
    If the nom thinks that the hatted list is a duplicate, I suggest that the nom is free to remove it. Unscintillating (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Had the nominator checked what was being removed, the nominator would have discovered that the preparation for this nomination missed two previous AfD nominations. It was the nom's responsibility to follow WP:BEFORE, including WP:BEFORE D1 searches and reports on Google web, Google news, Google newspapers, and Google books, for each of these 23 topics; as well as to explain why there was a need to renominate articles that previously went through AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - The two articles were kept in 2009. Standards have clearly changed significantly in the intervening years, given that my test case nomination was closed as delete last week. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Minato mayoral election, 2008

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural oppose I agree that some of the very small ones are unlikely to be notable, but there are some in here where well over 100,000 votes were cast (e.g. Niigata mayoral election, 2006 and Kumamoto mayoral election, 2006) so I don't think it's been bundled appropriately. District council elections in the UK have been repeatedly determined to be notable at AfD and can be for very small jurisdictions (e.g. the Shetland Islands). I think a discussion, possibly an RfC, should be held at somewhere like WP:E&R or WP:JAPAN to determine what level of local government should be a cut-off point for election articles (perhaps cities?). Some of the nominated articles (e.g. Niigata and Kumamoto) are designated cities which have many of the powers of a prefecture, which is the second tier of government in Japan. Number 5 7 21:25, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep All - Split them up. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2018 (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.