Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Kozhikode

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 keep. Opportunity for rework per suggestions in discussion (non-admin closure) — crh ₂₃ (Talk) 16:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor of Kozhikode

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

This page was created by a now blocked sock. I could find no coverage outside of routine "elections are taking place" or "person X is now in office". Where there is coverage, it's about the people holding the office or an election, not the political office itself. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Holding an official position in office usually merits an article, regardless of the locale. The lack of coverage puts a negative on it's worthiness, as the nominator mentioned. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @VegasCasinoKid: Yes, but does the office itself warrant an article? The mayors have their own articles. ~ Rob^Talk 16:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I really don't see why it doesn't, and if consensus thinks otherwise then merging would suffice. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with User:VegasCasinoKid, article must be improved upon. Ahmer Jamil Khan 07:35, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's akin to Mayor of Mumbai, for one. The nominator is right, there's a bunch of India city mayoral position articles that should simply be renamed as List of mayors of foo. They are all grouped in Category:Lists of mayors. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I would not oppose substantially reworking this article into a list if there's been at least five mayors. A list of three people doesn't make much sense; succession boxes are just as effective. ~ Rob^Talk 18:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, succession boxes are not just as effective. The whole point of an encyclopedia is that it provides readers with information that they don't already know. How can such a reader who doesn't know the names of any mayors of Kozhikode find this information if it's only in the individual articles? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, there's a search feature which would easily let them find every mayor. Alternatively, we could redirect the name to the city article, which certainly contains the current mayor's name at the very least. An encyclopedia's purpose isn't to help readers find all information. It's to help them find notable information, and this doesn't appear notable based on what coverage exists. No-one has provided coverage that shows this passes WP:GNG. ~ Rob^Talk 01:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - There have actually been 25 mayors, as you would have known if you had read the first sentence of the first source cited in the article. I make that at least five. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would withdraw this nomination if you converted this into a list article of mayors. That would be useful. ~ Rob^Talk 05:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sorry, but I don't run an edit-on-demand service. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see that Kozhikode (formerly known as Calicut) had a mayor when Vasco da Gama visited in 1498, so the history of this office is certainly something that we should cover. I guess that the designation of the current mayor as the 25th only counts back as far as 1947. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per my comments above. Whether this stays under its current title or gets refactored as a list artile is a matter for normal editing and talk page discussion, so doesn't need to be decided here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prepared to put in any more work on an article when that work might get deleted in a couple of days, but if anyone else wants to then they might find some useful sources here: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. And please look at the books and scholar search results first, as they are more likely to be reliable secondary sources than the news search results, which in turn are far more likely to be reliable than the web search results. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2016 (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.