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 delete. Sandstein 16:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1991 Whitby municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

1994 Whitby municipal election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Two articles about municipal elections in a suburban town, not really offering any substantive content to make them worth maintaining. They both completely elide the mayoral race, the regional council seats and three of the four local wards, offering results tables only for one ward race -- and the 1991 table just says the winner was elected, without actually including the vote totals at all, while the 1994 table just says she was acclaimed. All of the sourcing in both articles, further, is parked entirely on followup mini-biographies of non-notable people: 1991's on Judi Longfield's non-notable competitor, and 1994's on the non-notable person who was selected to replace her after she resigned from the municipal council to run for Parliament. Which means neither of these actually has any real reason to exist: they're not offering any actual substance about the election, but both exist solely because Longfield won the parliamentary election and served as an MP — so in actual practice, they're really just functioning as a way to sneak minibios of non-notables into Wikipedia under the guise of event articles rather than as properly sourced or substantive articles about elections that are noteworthy in their own right.
WikiProject Canada's established consensus around Ontario municipal elections is to do one merged article per census division rather than separate articles about each individual town or city, so no prejudice against the creation of 1991 Durham Region municipal elections if somebody can actually find adequate sourcing to properly support more than just one town-level ward in Whitby -- but since these are missing eight of the nine offices that were actually up for election in Whitby, and are parking their sourcing entirely on overcovering non-notable people instead of on any actual substance about the election itself, they're not useful to maintain in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I prodded this 13 year old article as it is woefully inadequate. Whether the subject is notable is highly doubtful, and no one in all this time has even attempted to make the article cover even the most basic aspects of the subject. Articles like this should be speedyable. Fram (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Whatever standards support the inclusion of articles on elections, they can not possibly be met by the content of these articles. bd2412 T 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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.