Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Fenland District Council election

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 keep‎. Clear consensus to keep, as has been discussed on similar deletion nominations. (non-admin closure) Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Fenland District Council election

[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)

Another contested draft/redirect with zero improvement. Might be a case of WP:TOOSOON, but should have been left in draft until enough WP:SIGCOV could be added to show it passes notability requirements. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:13, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the same reasons that have been discussed on every other one of these you've proposed for deletion. You are setting a very high standard for sourcing and notability that does not currently exist. All one has to do is go to the BBC and regional news sites and you'll find plenty of coverage of many local elections. Bentley4 (talk) 21:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons we have discussed on all the other equivalent pages you have proposed for deletion (Wigan, Luton, Cambridge, Cheshire West and Chester, and possibly others I have yet to find).

Stortford (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale for the nomination seems moot now that the election has been held and the results reported. Coverage here [1], here [2] and here [3]. The nomination was valid as no WP:SIGCOV had been demonstrated, but for practical purposes it does seem more or less guaranteed that coverage sufficient to pass GNG would be available a few days after the nomination was made, so I'm critical of the nomination for coming across as WP:Waste of Time. Rupples (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2023 (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.