Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1944 Kearsley Shire Council election

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1944 Kearsley Shire Council election

[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)

I don't see how a non capital city LGA election with just 7,936 voters can possibly be notable. Steelkamp (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 06:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Second line of the article clearly establishes notability, "the first time a communist party had won a local government majority in the English-speaking world" is 100% notable

Obviously other Kearsley Shire Council elections should not and do not have their own pages Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 07:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't necessarily mean this election deserves its own page though. This could easily be accommodated within the Kearsley Shire page itself. Steelkamp (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Kearsley Shire can cover this history. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I am surprised this article was even nominated for deletion. The second and third paragraphs of the introduction clearly establish notability. This is a notable local government election in Australian history, one that has attracted both specific studies by historians (Martin Mowbray's article in the leading journal Labour History, which is cited in the article) and observation in larger studies of the CPA. Stuart Macintyre in The Party frames his discussion of the CPA's local government efforts around its 1944 success in Kearsley (pp.155–156). J.D. Playford's PhD thesis, "Doctrinal and Strategic Problems of the Communist Party of Australia, 1945-1962" (ANU, 1962) suggests that the support the CPA secured in Kearsley and other municipalities influenced its postwar electoral strategy and objectives (pp.30–31). I also do not see the relevance of Kearsley not being a capital city LGA; much of note in Australian politics has occurred beyond capital cities and we should not encourage a capital-centric attitude. My recommendation, far from deletion, is expansion: there is plenty more to say about this unusual and notable result. Axver (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not only did this election end with a controversial result (the election of a handful of communist party members (5/8 seats) - the most in any local election, leading to a government majority), but there was ample coverage, and an indication of lasting effects. Trainsskyscrapers (talk) 3:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Keep the nominator's personal opinion regarding notability is irrelevant; there are more than adequate reliable sources, both contemporary and subsequent (even 50 years later, eg [1]), to satisfy WP:NEVENT. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Goldsztajn and Trainsskyscrapers. Academic coverage is enough. 2A01:799:2E3:C500:556:815E:86C2:7DB1 (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2024 (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.