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. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Councillors of City of Glen Eira[edit]

Councillors of City of Glen Eira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Constant vandalism by former Glen Eira councillors and/or supporters - this has to stop !!!! --CatonB (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for deletion is because there are former Glen Eira Councillors and/or supporters who are constantly editing this article with their biased vandalism and this has to stop right her right now --CatonB (talk) 21:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - vandalism is not a criterion for deletion, notability is. This article covers material already contained in an adequate summary at City of Glen Eira#Past and Current Glen Eira Councillors. I can't see that we need expanded details on the councillors. Wikipedia is not a directory - per WP:NOT#DIR--Matilda ^talk 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This seems like an end-run around notability requirements. There is little encyclopedic need to keep a list of all local politicians, and it's rife with problems, as seen. --Dhartung | Talk 23:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the creation of the article is weird. I am not sure where it came from. User:Fantasy who appears to be not Australian, created the article fully formed - lots of links etc but with the comment this details and not-election are not relevant for an Encyclopedia. see relevant diff. I thought it might have been a break out from the article on the council but the revision history of that article doesn't support that view. Curious? The user has left wikipedia.--Matilda ^talk 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's not a matter of some deleted history under BLP concerns? --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing that the logs of either this article or the article on the Council reveal to me (I have admin access so should be able to see). --Matilda ^talk 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The following links shed some light on the history:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Eira city councillors and this --Melburnian (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Level of detail provided on individual councillors is not notable and as stated by Matilda the coverage in City of Glen Eira is sufficient. Murtoa (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NOTE. Gatoclass (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete City of Glen Eira covers this article in enough detail. Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 05:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Local councillors are generally considered non-notable by WP standards except occasionally mayors. This would set a bad precedent. —Moondyne click! 06:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but it is not correct that local councilors are non-notable; it depends on the city, & the nature of the government (whether its a ceremonial position or an influential one), NYC and Chicago and some others have been considered notable, & i'd be prepared to go down to a size of about a million. But not 124,000, like this one.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 10:07 (AEST), 14 March 2008
• Merge. The level of detail on the councillors would be a worthy addition to the main council article. There is no policy in WP that this type of detail should be deleted, only that it shouldn't have its own page. Assize (talk) 03:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - there are WP:BLP concerns with some of the information. The individuals are not notable in themselves according to our criteria as others have mentioend above. The article on the Council already mentiones them and is otherwise quite a substantial article - I can't see where it would fit to have this much detail about the councillors, who assaulted whom, who was sacked, .... Please have a look at the article on the Council which in my view seems quite well balanced.--Matilda ^talk 03:36, 14 March 2008 (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.