Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agra (Mayoral Constituency)

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 delete. A lot of confusion over what exactly this article is about. That being said, the content is essentially identical to Agra Municipal Corporation#List of mayors (which I note is closer in scope to San Francisco city government than San Francisco), and this is an unlikely search term by most accounts. ansh666 01:21, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agra (Mayoral Constituency)

Agra (Mayoral Constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Winners would fail NPOL, it's hard to see how this is notable on its own. Merging into a related article or outright deletion is probably the best route here. South Nashua (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:33, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm not an expert in Indian politics, so I can't speak to whether these mayors would pass WP:NPOL or not — its population is over a million, which would certainly seem like they should, but we've historically had problems actually finding adequate sourcing for mayors of many cities in India and mayors don't get an automatic "no sourcing required" inclusion freebie just because they exist. But what I did want to share is that this is part of a pattern of lists of mayors of places in Uttar Pradesh (see also Varanasi (Mayoral Constituency), Kanpur (Mayoral Constituency) and Lucknow (Mayoral Constituency)) that were all recently created by the same user under an incorrect and entirely nonsensical title format — places have mayors because they're cities, not because there's any such thing as a "mayoral constituency". And when I've attempted to move them to the correct titles, "List of mayors of X", the creator has moved them back to the "mayoral constituency" forms again without explanation — and then when I escalated it to WP:RM discussions instead, two of them got moved to the correct titles and one's still pending, but even for the ones that did get moved the creator moved them back to the "mayoral constituency" forms again, still without actually explaining the action anywhere. I've actually had to entirely move-protect them to get that to stop. And the Lucknow list, further, isn't even actually complete, and simply reduplicates a portion of another list we already have in another article — so I've listed it for AFD too. So I have no strong opinion either way about whether this is keepable or not, but if it is kept it has to be moved to List of mayors of Agra, and the creator is definitely being disruptive and unresponsive to feedback.
  As well, I'm fairly certain that the list is incomplete — again, I'm not an expert in Indian politics, but I strongly doubt that a city that's old enough to have been mentioned in the Mahabharata has only had mayors since 2006. The value in retaining lists of mayors, even if they don't have individual BLPs to link to, is in a complete list — a list of just the two or three most recent holders of an office that has had more than two or three holders is not better (actually it's arguably worse) than having no list at all — to maintain a list like this, we should normally wait until we can find adequate sources to list all of the mayors, rather than just listing the two or three recent ones that some editor happens to remember off the top of their head. Bearcat (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- normally mayors are not notable. WP:NPOL However, if the area includes over 1 million people then it is like being mayor of a large city which would be notable.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether the mayors are notable or not, the value of a list of them vests in its completeness. But this is a list of just the three most recent mayors of a city which has had mayors for much longer than just the past ten years alone, and there's no encyclopedic value in that. Bearcat (talk) 16:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an argument to expand, not delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:46, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which we can't do without the sources to expand it with. Lists of mayors should not be created at all until the list is already complete right off the bat. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The incomplete list of mayors is here Agra_Municipal_Corporation#List_of_mayors--DreamLinker (talk) 08:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is no such thing as "mayoral constituency" in India. In India, the mayor is head of the municipal corporation, which in this case is Agra Municipal Corporation. The mayor is not head of a city. Any information about a mayor should be mentioned in the municipal corporation article. Agra is also not a major city (population wise) and is largely known for tourism and keeping a separate list of mayors is not required.--DreamLinker (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Agra Municipal Corporation Delete- based on information provided by DreamLinker, I am changing my vote.--Rusf10 (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any value in merging. What is the content that could be merged? The redirect is also not useful here.--DreamLinker (talk) 15:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're right there's not much there, delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with no opposition to moving to a better name. I am reminded of our article Mayor of San Francisco because Ed Lee, mayor of that city in recent years, died unexpectedly two days ago. No one would consider deleting that article. The Wikimedia Foundation, after all, is headquartered in that world famous city, along with many major corporations. But Agra has a population almost twice that of San Francisco, is also a major tourist destination, and if the current article is correct, the Agra constituency has an order of magnitude more voters than San Francisco. If the article is now incomplete, then it should be improved rather than being expanded. As for the argument that winners of this post fail WP:POLITICIAN, I would believe that only if an editor fluent in the leading Languages of Uttar Pradesh, and the newspapers and magazines of Agra was to tell me so, after a diligent local search. This is precisely the type of article that allows us to include information about mayors of cities of 1.5 million residents in this case, when we do not yet have enough information for freestanding biographies of those mayors. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my previous comment and change of "vote", I assume it was an accident. I believe this article should be deleted but not for the same reason as the nomination. I do agree with you this is large enough in population for an article. However, that article already exists here: Agra Municipal Corporation. --Rusf10 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inadvertent deletion of your comment, Rusf10. I am using a new smartphone and still learning its quirks. However, I disagree with your reasoning. Deleting this article about an elected political position because we already have an article about the political entity would be the same as deleting Mayor of San Francisco because we already have an article on San Francisco. These are different topics even though they are related topics. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cullen328. The position of "Mayor" in India is slightly different from those in the US. In India mayors are not heads of the city (nor the head of the city administration), but rather heads of the municipal corporations associated with it. For example, Delhi is ruled by a state government and the head of this government is the Chief Minister. Inside Delhi, there are multiple municipal corporation and each such municipal corporation is headed by a mayor. The area of jurisdiction of municipal corporations is also not always fixed. Elections for local civic bodies in India are a low key affair as compared to state elections or national elections. The so called "Mayor of Agra" is actually the head of the Agra Municipal Corporation. I had previously added the names of the mayors to Agra Municipal Corporation and also added references. At this time, deleting this article will not lead to any loss of information. Finally, the term "Mayoral constituency" is not used in India and I have never seen it being used in any newspapers or official documents.--DreamLinker (talk) 06:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, have added an "incomplete/expand list" tag to the section listing the mayors. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:05, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, hi Bearcat, you state in your comment above: "places have mayors because they're cities, not because there's any such thing as a "mayoral constituency".", the thing is according to the Agra wikiarticle the metropolitan pop. was 1,585,704 in 2011 (the Agra district had a 2011 pop. of 4,418,797), and yet according to this "mayoral constituency" article the no. of voters were 12,67,595, (1,267,595) so unless there aren't many youngsters in the city of Agra (isnt the proportion in India around 55%kids to 45%adults?) and/or there has been a massive pop. growth in the last 6years, this appears to be bigger then metro Agro. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Coolabahapple I don't know how reliable the no. of voters is or even where they got it from. I was not able to find it in any database that I know of. India's also doesn't have any such thing as "mayoral constituency".--DreamLinker (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article is badly named, but isn't the Mayor's position independent of the Municipal Corporation, whose leader is a typically commissioner that is expected to collaborate with the mayor? I would have thought that an article simply on the Mayor of Agra could be valid, and would be the best place for the list of past office-holders. Batternut (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• In India mayors are not appointed to a city per se. A mayor is the head of the Municipal Corporation. If a city has multiple such municipal corporations, there will be multiple mayors (such as in Delhi).--DreamLinker (talk) 06:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources in the article are insufficient to make its content verifiable. Sandstein 11:46, 22 December 2017 (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.