Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian general elections 1977-1999

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 (splitting is up to editors, and is not part of this AFD closure). JERRY ^talk _contribs 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indian general elections 1977-1999

Indian general elections 1977-1999 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)This article seems to be made of content copied and pasted from some website. The article doesnt mention the references nor does it abide by WP:NOT#DIRECTORY and WP:NOT#PAPER -

Rustam

07:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Elections and election results are important and valid encyclopedic content. A copyvio charge needs evidence especially since the edit history shows multiple authors. WP:NOT#PAPER says that content should NOT limited to the constraints of a paper encyclopedia. Nomination cites WP:NOT#PAPER for a use against its purpose. • Gene93k (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, to a large degree the material here is duplicated in articles like Indian general election, 1999. Also, the 1977 to 1999 distinction seems rather arbitary. Lankiveil (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep, listing of election results is not in contradiction with WP:DIRECTORY. When I wrote this, a long time ago, I was far sloppier with references. All numbers are from election commission website (www.eci.gov.in), but the tables have been arranged by me, and wikified with internal wikilinks. It is thus, not just a copy. As per 1977-1999 distinction, it is not arbitrary. In Indian electoral politics, 1977 was a watershed year (the first time Congress lost power). --Soman (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and Split - The content should definitely be kept. I would actually support breaking these elections into separate articles, though, and adding some prose in addition to the information; I think that would make for better articles in general. matt91486 (talk) 14:29, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• Split - one article per each election, as is standard. Biruitorul (talk) 17:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
• split one article per each election; content is certainly encyclopedic and specifically WP encyclopedic. Hmains (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, as an absolutely encyclopedic topic. Sure, some cleanup might be warranted - but that is not a reason to delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

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.