Talk:2010 Lethbridge municipal election

Likely candidates
When this page was created, the creator included a section outlining likely aldermanic candidates. As soon as we use the word “likely”, we are introducing speculation. If we are going to list likely candidates, they need to be supported by published sources, not our own guesses. I have since hidden this content until someone can provide published support for this claims. --Kmsiever (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I used the name "Likely candidates" in my first one (Edmonton municipal election, 2010) so that the TOC would be thinner, but that doesn't matter here because it is not a ward system, sorry. 117Avenue (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. That makes sense. Thanks for the clarification. --Kmsiever (talk) 20:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Bold names and redlinks
I noticed the candidate names are in bold. Is there a reason for this? Also, I noticed Kevin Layton’s redlink has been removed, but Rajko Dodic’s redlink remains. Can someone explain this to me as well? --Kmsiever (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the bolding of candidates may have originated from Edmonton's last election, to easily see the list of names mixed in with the summaries. I removed the redlink from Layton because he shouldn't have an article, he placed last in 2007, and only councillors are notable enough to have articles, (again see Edmonton 2007, the only exception is a notable nation wide activist). 117Avenue (talk) 23:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that since Lethbridge is not a “major metropolitan city”, WP:POLITICIAN mayors are the only municipal politicians notable enough by their position alone to warrant an article. --Kmsiever (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I hadn't actually read that, I was basing it off Edmonton and Calgary. 117Avenue (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of candidate information
Just a quick note here to add my voice to the consensus for not deleting candidate information (a consensus I believe exists given the diversity of editors who have added some candidate information to a 2010 Alberta municipal election article).Bdell555 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What deletion? It's all still there. 117Avenue (talk) 03:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

wondering why some candidates are getting special treatment...
Hello. Can someone tell me why some candidates are allowed to put things like "political watchdog" behind their names while others are not allowed to include truthful information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electionwatcher (talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "political watchdog" deleted. There is another editor who is more deletionist than I who may be going further and deleting material you want kept and should be kept, and I think it would be more difficult for such editors to justify deletion of info about a candidate's political positions or platform if inline citations were used; - e.g. "candidate X stands for [dubious or unpopular] policy Y" could be added by a competing candidate, such that a cite to the Lethbridge Herald or the candidate's website or (last resort) Twitter feed would be advisable.Bdell555 (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Bdell. I appreciate your comments and integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.161.210 (talk) 05:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Political watchdog was from the source that has since been deleted by another editor. Also, please be sure to understand the conflict of interest issues of candidates (or campaign members) adding information about themselves into articles. --Kmsiever (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * To make a general observation about candidate information and sourcing:
 * Although it is generally fine for facts that have a negligible promotional element and/or don't represent subjective opinion, e.g.
 * "Candidate X was born in 1969" or "Candidate X was born in Moose Jaw and is currently proprietor of Mom & Pop's Diner on Main Street"
 * to just source to a candidate's website, it won't do for Wikipedia to just say:
 * "Candidate X is a legend"
 * with a footnote to candidate X's website saying "I am a legend." (See WP:SELFPUB)
 * Wikipedia should instead read,
 * "According to candidate X, he is a legend."
 * Identifying the source in the text should rarely be needed for material sourced to, say, the Lethbridge Herald. But it should usually be needed for material sourced to partisan campaigns.  Such is my view, anyway.Bdell555 (talk) 18:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Excellent point, Bdell555, and thanks for raising it. --Kmsiever (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This Wikipedia entry can not be trusted, as it is being managed by a very partisan group. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.161.210 (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not anywhere near as partisan as candidates editing the page trying to promote themselves. --Kmsiever (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2010 (UTC)