Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002 (2nd nomination)

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Amagasaki mayoral election, 2002

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Full disclosure: I AfD'd this in December in a bundled nom that turned into a TRAINWRECK and ended in a no consensus close. I came across it again in the process of clearing out my watchlist and decided to go again for this one on its own.

Here's my rationale from last time: 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, which closed as delete). I was not able to find any indication that this particular election generated anything beyond the typical "hey, we had an election, here's who won" kind of coverage.

For reference, ja.wiki does not have an article about this event. If it were a truly notable election I'd expect that the home-language wiki would have an article. The ja.wiki article for Amagasaki does not mention anything significant or unusual about this particular municipal election, and there are no sources about this election on that article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:49, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 04:55, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to keep per the arguments of Number 57 in the last discussion. It's possible that all such Amagasaki elections should be covered in a single article until that article is long enough that individual elections need to be split out, but I don't see any particular reason to delete this information. It seems to me that most elections of this type are significant per WP:EFFECT, and that it should not be difficult to find additional coverage if necessary to show that this passes WP:GNG. For example, this was only the second time a woman was elected mayor in Hyogo Prefecture; a quick search shows that beyond routine coverage it was covered in Sunday Mainichi and Shimbun Akahata at the very least, and there is certain to have been more coverage out there. Dekimasuよ! 05:28, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NEVENT; coverage is routine for this type of local election. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:44, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, sorry to resort to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't think we'd be having a deletion conversation here were this an article on an election in a Western country. There were things about this election (participants, results, number of votes, coverage in national media) that made it notable, and this is considerably easier to show than the case of something like Sudbury municipal election, 1929 or Hialeah mayoral election, 2011 or Municipal elections in Torreperogil (or for that matter, routine coverage of one-off sporting events that have articles, e.g 1986 Rous Cup). If articles of this sort are to be debated, there should be more specific criteria involved than just WP:NEVENT, which this at any rate passes in my estimation. Dekimasuよ! 21:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit to the article, and will continue as necessary if that's insufficient. Dekimasuよ! 23:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Personally, I don't think we ought to have those articles either, unless those elections were in and of themselves uniquely notable, and it has fuck-all to do with being Western or not. If I'd come across those articles, I'd have nominated them. But I came across this one, so this is the one I nominated. I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of larger article like Japanese municipal elections of 2002 or whatever, but I think it's patently ridiculous to have an individual article about every single municipal election in every single city in the world (Western or not). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:37, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more references again. User:Premeditated Chaos, I do not mean to imply that you are biased against these articles. But again, if we had more coverage of such things instead of deleting what we have, it would be easier to group them together into a single article of Amagasaki mayoral elections or Amagasaki municipal elections and show their significance as part of a historical narrative. It appears that it would be easy to add coverage of 2006, 2010, and 2014 instead if that would help alleviate your concerns. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article now looks significantly different from how it did yesterday. Dekimasuよ! 03:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources added do not substantiate the claim of notability for the topic of the 2002 election. Analysis as follows:
  - Japan Press: reasonable reliable newspaper, although it's the organ of the Japanese Communist Party, which backed the winning candidate, so I wouldn't call it independent
  - Apedia: City-published wiki/archive, no relevance to notability
  - Amanetzh: Not a reliable source for notability purposes - some kind of disability network website? Is there fact-checking or editorial oversight? Even if it is reliable, it's a scant two sentences - not in-depth enough to demonstrate notability
  - Sunday Minichi: No link so no indication of how in-depth this source is, and the paper's archives are not accessible unless you have a subscription
  - Japanese Communist Party: it's the website of the JCP which backed the candidate so not independent at all
  - Kobe: barely mentions the 2002 Amagasaki election except in one sentence right at the end, so not in-depth
  - Global Greens: not about the 2002 election despite a brief mention of the mayor that was elected in it, so it does nothing to demonstrate their notability
  - Archives: the city's own archives can't be used to indicate notability for the city's own elections, obviously
- If this is the best sourcing possible, this article should be deleted, or at best the information merged and redirected to Amagasaki. Dekimasu, I commend your work here, but none of it demonstrates the notability of the 2002 election specifically in and of itself. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the sources were added in efforts to establish notability–some were added to support specific statements being added to the article (though as a whole these speak to WP:EFFECT). I would dispute your characterization of the Amagasaki Municipal Archives (#8), which are an academic enterprise jointly managed by Sonoda Women's University. You seem to have skipped over the Iwanami publication (#7) which was jointly written by a professor from Rikkyo University and a professor from the Free University of Berlin. Further, as noted earlier, I would be happy to expand this beyond 2002 to a general article on Amagasaki mayoral elections if that would assuage your concerns. (As indicated by my revisions, I still believe this should be kept and expanded.) But I believe I have demonstrated that the election passes WP:EFFECT, WP:DIVERSE, WP:PERSISTENCE, etc. Dekimasuよ! 05:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it is still proper to compare this to your test case Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjo mayoral election, 2006, which deleted a one-sentence article that made no claim to notability beyond the idea that it was covering an election. There are probably several articles from the previous nomination that I would agree with you on; this just isn't one of them. Dekimasuよ! 05:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:20, 17 June 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.