This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sheffield, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sheffield on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SheffieldWikipedia:WikiProject SheffieldTemplate:WikiProject SheffieldSheffield articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
1966 Sheffield City Council election is within the scope of WikiProject Yorkshire, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Yorkshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project, see a list of open tasks, and join in discussions on the project's talk page.YorkshireWikipedia:WikiProject YorkshireTemplate:WikiProject YorkshireYorkshire articles
Elections are inherently notable, useful to those interested in a) British politics or b) wanting to establish trends. Without this you'd be missing candidates standing and their results. If this was classed as non-notable you'd have to get rid of huge swathes of election articles on Wikipedia. HeadlightMorning (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that there are huge swathes of election articles is hardly an argument for keeping this one. I don't know for sure if there is a consensus about the "inherent notability" of elections, but I've searched through the articles on notability guidelines and could not find any statement that would support this position. WP:Event suggests that for an event to be notable there must be non-routine and in-depth coverage and preferably evidence that the event is of historic importance or has had a lasting impact. The current article does not explain why this particular election is particularly significant and it has a single reference, so it does not demonstrate that coverage has been either in-depth or non-routine. Notable candidates or notable trends could have their own articles summarising the salient results.Smcg8374 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See past AfDs on similar pages, which have ruled in favour of retaining them, listed below:
I mention the huge swathes of other election pages, as, WP:Other stuff exists, states "the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." To single out this page, would fail to meet such a standard, unless you were willing to set yourself on a course that you'd need to delete hundreds if not thousands of pages, in contravention to those AfD's above.
This election page is no different from any of the following years, or those prior AfD's listed above, except in one regard: there isn't a multitude of sources offered, and given the age of this election, it's obviously harder to obtain those newspaper articles - which will have no doubt existed - because it's not simply a case of searching online like for contemporary election pages. I'd posit that if you were to accept the following elections - which you can readily find multiple sources for - as notable then this must be also: as they are no more notable or eventful than this.
I can only create as in-depth an article as the reports on the elections are, so candidate lists, votes, shares and a complete breakdown of seats, gains and losses, with the turnout figure is usually the extent of that.HeadlightMorning (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
