528:(ec*2) Please bear in mind that what I'm saying is in tune with the wishes you've expressed, even though my !vote is different. I don't feel "that strongly" about it and I haven't said that I do; I'm simply commenting on the application of policies and guidelines to the present case. Please also note that my !vote is based on IINFO, not BLP which, as you say, isn't violated in this case. The POLOUTCOMES bullet would need more than a change of example, because it currently speaks of the coatrack use. Apparently precedent has overruled the essay, so "the current BLP-restricted practice" needs to be described instead. I have a few questions: (a) is the current practice just precedent, or has a wider consensus already been attempted? if the latter, where? (b) since we both seem to think that lists of this type are useless, do you think there is mileage in asking for a wider consensus on this, or would it be just tilting at windmills? (c) this is slightly facetious, but only slightly ... is it BLP-compliant to allege that someone represents a political party without citing it? Because that's what the present "article" does. Peace, --
568:. I don't think that we should have a problem with a list of candidates: the main concern here should be notability. AAP is a new party, and therefore, most of their candidates are non-notable for Knowledge (XXG). On the other hand, AAP is also the party with the largest number of candidates in the fray, and has received considerable media attention.
503:
434:
Articles like this are subject to the content policies just as much as any other article. We don't say that all articles on authors (for example) should be retained just because we have some articles on authors. By the same token, we shouldn't say that all candidate lists should be retained just
332:
currently does permit them as the standard strategy for avoiding a profusion of "campaign brochure" articles about unelected candidates every time there's an election, and there would need to be a broader consensus to eliminate them across the board rather than deeming this one to be an
482:
contain any unsourced biographical information about the candidates which wouldn't be acceptable in a standalone bio — so while there are valid reasons why we should consider ditching candidate lists of this type entirely, the "no unsourced biographical information" proviso is
323:
undermined that, and under the current BLP-compliant model they no longer serve any useful purpose that the main listing of election results isn't already serving equally well. But, fortunately or otherwise, there has yet to be a properly established
466:— that I specified here as the reason why these lists might not actually be useful anymore. The old "minibio" lists certainly still need cleanup to conform properly to current "table of names only" practice, I don't deny that either — but I've
169:
56:
talks about it, but it's an essay, not policy. This article is not unique, and it would be good to formulate some clearer policy to cover these. That being said, in this particular AfD, the consensus is clearly to delete. --
308:
418:"Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article."
551:, article should be properly referenced, but as an article subject it is relevant and some prose could definately be added to it. I'm moving it to become uniform with other articles on 2014 candidates. --
421:
283:
163:
263:
122:
95:
90:
429:
99:
129:
243:
82:
514:
to be one that's been directly AFDed itself, but I'd still be happy to replace that example with the ONDP 1995 list if you feel that strongly about it.
470:
asked for assistance in getting that done, only to find that there's no substantive commitment from anybody to actually do so (which, in turn, feeds
420:
In other words, it specifically does not say that candidate lists like this should always be retained. In fact, the candidate list that it mentions,
506:, frex — and it was named there as an example of the type of list that was permitted at the time the criterion was drawn up, not as a citation for
52:. People on both sides of the debate seem to be struggling with the fact that we have no clear policy statement to cover this sort of article.
474:
my belief that a new consensus to just kill the lists off entirely should be pursued.) That said, however, the list currently under discussion
184:
151:
315:
under current wikirules — the original 2004-vintage model was that they could hold minibios of candidates who hadn't attained enough
17:
592:
576:
560:
537:
523:
444:
396:
374:
295:
275:
255:
234:
212:
145:
64:
383:
141:
583:
Let me chime in that we dont need to list on WP all the candidates with a seperate page. Thats what revferences are for.
86:
609:
40:
502:
been AFDs on other comparable lists in the past which have resulted in either "keep" or "no consensus" closures — see
191:
78:
70:
504:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Ontario New
Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election
455:
405:
329:
53:
157:
325:
605:
36:
413:
230:
177:
387:
354:
573:
61:
222:
201:
307:
actually been traditionally allowed on
Knowledge (XXG) — for just one example out of many, see
519:
370:
291:
271:
251:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
604:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
588:
408:
does indeed recognise the use of articles like this as dumping grounds for minibios such as
391:
463:
320:
556:
424:, has never been through an AfD, so how could it be considered an example of an outcome? (
533:
440:
226:
208:
316:
569:
58:
515:
409:
366:
287:
267:
247:
116:
417:
584:
510:
the consensus was formulated. The example given in an OUTCOMES summary doesn't
552:
498:
list that's being cited as an example is also irrelevant to the matter: there
529:
436:
204:
319:
to stand alone as full articles in their own rights, but the evolution of
309:
Ontario New
Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election
478:
already fully compliant with the current BLP-restricted practice, as it
200:
The page is merely a listing of election candidates, thus failing
598:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
422:
New
Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election
311:. Truth be told, I'm not fully convinced that they're actually
462:
that proviso there, for exactly the reason — the evolution of
416:. WP:POLOUTCOMES (which is only an essay anyway) also states:
435:
because some are. Where we have IINFO, we should delete. --
425:
365:
exists as standard procedure for many other elections.
112:
108:
104:
176:
328:
to kill them off entirely. Like them or not, though,
430:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Steve
Willcott
284:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
190:
494:And the fact that there hasn't been an AFD on the
357:violations, but I can't support treating this one
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
612:). No further edits should be made to this page.
264:list of Politicians-related deletion discussions
8:
349:favour a broader consensus that they should
282:Note: This debate has been included in the
262:Note: This debate has been included in the
242:Note: This debate has been included in the
412:alludes to. But this is a classic case of
281:
261:
244:list of India-related deletion discussions
241:
54:Knowledge (XXG):POLOUTCOMES#Politicians
345:, although I say that reluctantly — I
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
428:shows one AfD, but this refers to
384:Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists
24:
491:list should be retained or not.
1:
432:, which resulted in a merge.)
303:Candidate lists of this type
79:AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates
71:AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates
225:and not notable or useful.--
629:
538:18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
524:17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
445:17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
397:06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
375:17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
296:16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
276:16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
256:16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
235:01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
213:01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
593:19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
577:06:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
561:20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
65:17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
601:Please do not modify it.
458:says that; I personally
32:Please do not modify it.
386:, Knowledge (XXG) is a
361:from the practice that
337:case that's subject to
48:The result was
298:
278:
258:
620:
603:
419:
394:
195:
194:
180:
132:
120:
102:
34:
628:
627:
623:
622:
621:
619:
618:
617:
616:
610:deletion review
599:
392:
137:
128:
93:
77:
74:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
626:
624:
615:
614:
595:
580:
579:
563:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
492:
456:WP:POLOUTCOMES
449:
448:
406:WP:POLOUTCOMES
399:
377:
330:WP:POLOUTCOMES
300:
299:
279:
259:
238:
237:
198:
197:
134:
73:
68:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
625:
613:
611:
607:
602:
596:
594:
590:
586:
582:
581:
578:
575:
571:
567:
564:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
546:
539:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
505:
501:
497:
493:
490:
486:
481:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
452:
451:
450:
447:
446:
442:
438:
431:
427:
423:
415:
411:
407:
403:
400:
398:
395:
389:
385:
381:
378:
376:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
353:be killed as
352:
348:
344:
340:
336:
331:
327:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
285:
280:
277:
273:
269:
265:
260:
257:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
203:
193:
189:
186:
183:
179:
175:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
143:
140:
139:Find sources:
135:
131:
127:
124:
118:
114:
110:
106:
101:
97:
92:
88:
84:
80:
76:
75:
72:
69:
67:
66:
63:
60:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
600:
597:
565:
548:
511:
507:
499:
495:
488:
484:
479:
475:
471:
467:
459:
433:
401:
379:
362:
358:
350:
346:
342:
338:
334:
312:
304:
218:
199:
187:
181:
173:
166:
160:
154:
148:
138:
125:
49:
47:
31:
28:
487:to whether
426:Its history
414:WP:COATRACK
393:Redtigerxyz
359:differently
164:free images
496:particular
485:irrelevant
468:frequently
317:notability
606:talk page
388:WP:NOTDIR
382:: Though
363:currently
355:WP:NOTDIR
339:different
326:consensus
288:• Gene93k
268:• Gene93k
248:• Gene93k
227:DThomsen8
37:talk page
608:or in a
570:utcursch
335:isolated
223:WP:IINFO
202:WP:IINFO
123:View log
59:RoySmith
39:or in a
566:Comment
516:Bearcat
480:doesn't
410:Bearcat
367:Bearcat
341:rules.
170:WP refs
158:scholar
96:protect
91:history
585:Lihaas
464:WP:BLP
402:Delete
380:Delete
321:WP:BLP
313:useful
221:Fails
219:Delete
142:Google
100:delete
62:(talk)
50:delete
553:Soman
508:where
454:Yes,
347:would
185:JSTOR
146:books
130:Stats
117:views
109:watch
105:links
16:<
589:talk
574:talk
557:talk
549:Keep
534:talk
530:Stfg
520:talk
512:have
500:have
489:this
472:into
441:talk
437:Stfg
371:talk
343:Keep
305:have
292:talk
272:talk
252:talk
231:talk
209:talk
205:Stfg
178:FENS
152:news
113:logs
87:talk
83:edit
460:put
351:all
192:TWL
121:– (
591:)
572:|
559:)
536:)
522:)
476:is
443:)
404::
390:.
373:)
294:)
286:.
274:)
266:.
254:)
246:.
233:)
211:)
172:)
115:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
98:|
94:|
89:|
85:|
587:(
555:(
532:(
518:(
439:(
369:(
290:(
270:(
250:(
229:(
207:(
196:)
188:·
182:·
174:·
167:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
144:(
136:(
133:)
126:·
119:)
81:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.