238:, obviously. These articles are hardly non-encyclopedic - they're an incredibly useful repository for these historical results. I'm also not aware of any policy that prohibits lists such as these using primary sources, since in this case it's obviously the most reliable way to go - an electoral commission is hardly the same as a primary source in a biography, for example. Nominating one article in isolation is also an odd move - there are literally
302:
This is a bizarre nomination - of course it's encyclopedic for an article about an electoral district to include its past results, and to split them off into a separate article when it's a district that's been around for sixty years. It's also strange to critique it for using primary sources: what
164:
262:
379:
electoral results in that article would be a nightmare. As for the "extremely narrow" comment, part of
Knowledge's great strength is the ability for it to cover very narrow or obscure topics in great detail.
98:
93:
102:
158:
85:
125:
89:
212:
350:
81:
73:
179:
146:
404:
384:
364:
341:
312:
292:
278:
251:
227:
204:
67:
239:
140:
136:
186:
17:
152:
325:
48:. Consensus based on 1) Electoral results are generally appropriate for inclusion and 2) Splitting necessary due to size (
49:
328:
article, but that would bloat that article (the reason these sub-articles were created in the first place...). See
419:
36:
418:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
321:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
329:
274:
58:
270:
223:
395:- Legitimate sub-topic that would clutter the main article. This is, in essence, a form of a list.
172:
200:
400:
360:
337:
308:
288:
247:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
53:
219:
381:
196:
62:
396:
356:
333:
304:
284:
243:
119:
320:
per
Frickeg and Rebecca. Also, "non encylopedic" is a poor argument to make, see
303:
other source would you expect for election results but the electoral commission?
195:
extremely narrow, non encylopedic article, using only primary sources.
412:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
266:
115:
111:
107:
171:
324:. At the very worst it should be merged back to the
330:Knowledge:Article size#Lists, tables and summaries
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
422:). No further edits should be made to this page.
283:I had the exact same thought when I saw this :)
213:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
351:list of Politics-related deletion discussions
185:
82:Electoral results for the district of Burwood
74:Electoral results for the district of Burwood
8:
349:Note: This debate has been included in the
211:Note: This debate has been included in the
375:, legitimate split-off article. Including
348:
210:
7:
24:
261:We've been through this before
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
326:Electoral district of Burwood
68:07:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
405:01:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
385:12:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
365:22:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
342:22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
313:12:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
293:22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
279:09:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
252:08:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
228:08:24, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
205:02:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
439:
415:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
242:of these articles.
44:The result was
367:
354:
322:WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC
230:
216:
66:
50:non-admin closure
430:
417:
355:
217:
190:
189:
175:
123:
105:
60:
34:
438:
437:
433:
432:
431:
429:
428:
427:
426:
420:deletion review
413:
132:
96:
80:
77:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
436:
434:
425:
424:
408:
407:
389:
388:
369:
368:
345:
344:
315:
297:
296:
295:
255:
254:
232:
231:
193:
192:
129:
76:
71:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
435:
423:
421:
416:
410:
409:
406:
402:
398:
394:
391:
390:
386:
383:
378:
374:
371:
370:
366:
362:
358:
352:
347:
346:
343:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
316:
314:
310:
306:
301:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
253:
249:
245:
241:
237:
234:
233:
229:
225:
221:
214:
209:
208:
207:
206:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
64:
61:(note: not a
59:
57:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
414:
411:
392:
376:
372:
317:
299:
258:
235:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
55:I, Jethrobot
54:
45:
43:
31:
28:
271:Miracle Pen
159:free images
220:Tom Morris
382:Lankiveil
357:• Gene93k
240:hundreds
197:Gaijin42
126:View log
397:Carrite
334:Jenks24
305:Rebecca
285:Jenks24
259:Comment
244:Frickeg
165:WP refs
153:scholar
99:protect
94:history
137:Google
103:delete
300:Keep.
180:JSTOR
141:books
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
401:talk
393:Keep
373:Keep
361:talk
338:talk
318:Keep
309:talk
289:talk
275:talk
267:here
265:and
263:here
248:talk
236:Keep
224:talk
201:talk
173:FENS
147:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
46:keep
377:all
187:TWL
124:– (
63:bot
403:)
363:)
353:.
340:)
332:.
311:)
291:)
277:)
269:.
250:)
226:)
215:.
203:)
167:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
65:!)
52:)
399:(
387:.
359:(
336:(
307:(
287:(
273:(
246:(
222:(
218:—
199:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.