Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringwood Town Council

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 merge to Ringwood. (non-admin closure) – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ringwood Town Council

[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)

Small local town council, meets neither WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:08, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep What are the criteria that define "small" for town councils in England and thus justify deletion of pages? Not having the general power of competence? A category "parish councils of England" exists with 33 pages. Should these all be deleted? A category "Town Councils in Cheshire" exists. Should these pages all be removed? If we're going to remove pages on local government units over perceived small size or importance the there will need to be clear defensible criteria otherwise it makes more sense to leave them be.Ringwodian (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. Shellwood (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ringwood. There are 9000-odd town and parish councils in England alone, so the fact we've got 33 in a category isn't a very persuasive argument. Some parish and town councils may achieve notability by their actions and scandals reaching the attention of secondary sources. This one hasn't; the article contains nothing but the town's population (in the main article already), a statement that the council run such amenities as the allotments (information leeked to the press?) and cemetery (the subject of many grave council deliberations), and the results of the last election. If we allow articles like this, we're opening the gates to the creation of hundreds of thousands of such articles covering tiny councils the globe over, a stub-creator's paradise, but not much use to anyone else. Elemimele (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do to discourage such awful puns? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just emitted an audible groan. Naturally, I disagree, but as a connoisseur of awful puns, I salute you. Ringwodian (talk) 21:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above - definitely don't need every council with its own page, that'd be quite a lot. Certainly could be mentioned on the community page. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The size of the area which this council covers is not a reason to delete this article. It's independently sourced and the article can always be expanded in the future. Rillington (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge parish councils should normally be covered in the parish its self unless perhaps like Northampton are so large they may need a separate article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ringwood. I'm on the fence regarding whether or not it's notable. However, I think that a better structure for the information would be to place information on the governance of the municipality within the article on the municipality if the whole of the information on its governance structure is approximately two paragraphs. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:08, 5 March 2022 (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.