- 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 of the debate was No consensus; a merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. If growing up, attending school, having a job and family and joining the Lions Club made one notable, we'd all have articles. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep see Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- SimonP is referring to the discussion on the talk page, which contains a proposal that would introduce a massively disproportionate systemic and intentional bias into Wikipedia, and which should be soundly rejected. Uncle G 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish him well in his candidacy but in my view, being a political candidate in itself is not notable and none of the other biographical details establish notability at the moment. If he becomes the member for his constituency, that is another matter. Delete. Capitalistroadster 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Capitalistroadster, just a candidate. feydey 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, per Capitalistroadster. Ifnord 23:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep He's probably a long-shot, but he is the candidate of the current opposition party in the country, and will likely garner a significant portion of the vote. Now, I don't have any intention of voting for him or his party, but he has the right to the page. If one reviews the current guideline on Notability you will see that political figures in national or provincial legislatures are included. Now, elections aren't covered one way or another there, but if you take the sports area, where even players on school teams are automatic entries ... and even "first team squad members who have not made a first team appearance may also be appropriate, but only if the individual is at a club of sufficient stature that most members of its squad already have articles.". Using this test, I think everyone can agree that the Conservative Party of Canada is the equivalent of a "club of sufficient stature"! Nfitz 04:08, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing the point, he gets to join the club if he's elected. Wikipedia isn't a place for campaigning. Ifnord 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good argument to edit the article, and return it to it's November 27th version. However it isn't a good argument that there shouldn't be some kind of article at all.
- If you want to continue with the sports analogy, of course a major team is noteworthy. But you would not consider those trying out to be noteworthy, would you? Once they make the team, it's another story. Ifnord 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But he's made the team, and he's playing the game. The game is on! I think your arguement would hold, to stop pages being made for each of the people who were in the running to be the candidate, but failed to be selected. Not sure the big deal here, we looking at 308 ridings and 3 or 4 candidates each. Tha's only 1000 or so people, every 3-4 years. Compare to a major league sports team. 26 teams with 25 players per team. That's 650 people right there in one league ... and then when you include minor leagues, and even University leagues, and according to the notablity guidelines even College teams! Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to continue with the sports analogy, of course a major team is noteworthy. But you would not consider those trying out to be noteworthy, would you? Once they make the team, it's another story. Ifnord 23:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good argument to edit the article, and return it to it's November 27th version. However it isn't a good argument that there shouldn't be some kind of article at all.
- You're missing the point, he gets to join the club if he's elected. Wikipedia isn't a place for campaigning. Ifnord 04:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing in the article (which tells us about the subject's intensifying passions, his endorsements, and where his daughters go to school — none of which is sourced, by the way, and reads like it was taken straight from the candidate himself) indicates that this person satisfies any of the WP:BIO criteria. Being a candidate for an election doesn't satisfy the criteria. One has to satisfy the criteria for some other reason, such as for being a candidate who has also been the subject of significant (non-self-sourced) press coverage. Searching reveals nothing that indicates that this person satisfies the criteria in any other way. The press coverage is about the major players for the seat, with Conroy being given just one-sentence "Peter Conroy is also running." mentions at the ends of articles. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for election candidate statements, nor is it a platform for equalizing how much people know about candidates for office. It is an encyclopaedia. If a candidate is known as just a one-line directory entry on a ballot form, or as a one-sentence also-ran at the end of news items, outside of Wikipedia, then that is how Wikipedia should reflect xem: as a one-row entry in an election results table for the constituency. Delete. Uncle G 07:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the arguement about delete. That's the argument to revert the article to the November 27th version. What's your argument against the November 27th version! Nfitz 21:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, users should be able to read about major party candidates for national elections and we shouldn't be making "notability" judgements on their behalf. Kappa 06:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Yes, people should be able to read about their candidates, but this is not the place for party advertising. We are not making notability judgments on their behalf by determining that this guy does not belong in an encyclopedia because he does not meet any of the criteria. Candidates should not be included unless they are notable for some other reason. 209.202.119.248 14:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with a list of Conservative candidates for the 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and unmerge if he wins. Bearcat 23:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached. It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending. Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator's comments. --NormanEinstein 20:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Paul Hackett. -- JJay 01:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Kappa's argument. Endomion 03:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Uncle G's argument. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 07:03, Dec. 26, 2005
- 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.