Talk:2011 Ontario general election/Archive 1

Why is there no discussion of issues?
Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere in the article what each party's platform is, rather than just focusing on the horse race and the opinion polling? I tried adding links to the party platforms, but my edit was reverted right after I made it with no explanation. I'd like to know why. Esn (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume it was deleted because it contained four off-site links, instead of encyclopedic text describing the platforms. Yes, the latter would be a useful addition to the text. Mind  matrix  14:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There should be a section related to issues/platform, but as Mindmatrix said, I removed the platform section because all that was there was direct links. A section on platform should be created. Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 17:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Four off-site very notable links, however. It seems logical to me that an Ontario voter coming to Wikipedia to check up on the election would be interested in direct links to the party platforms; it is, after all, impossible to cover all the details in the article. Even if someone writes up a section of which issues gained the most coverage in the media, I think that direct links to the platforms would be useful. I, at least, always prefer to look at the source than look at things through a third-party lens. Esn (talk) 01:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A summary of each of the platforms is better and more encyclopedic than links as links expire after the election usually. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe the PDFs of the platforms are also found somewhere on unaffiliated (non-party-website) links such as newspapers? Those might be more permanent. Anyway, you may be right in retrospect - the platforms themselves aren't the epitome of conciseness. i.e. the Liberal platform spends far more room on advertising the Liberals' accomplishments in government than on concrete future plans. It should be possible to go through the platforms page by page, single out the concrete promises, and list all of them in the article for each party, properly referenced to page number. Would take some work, though. Esn (talk) 02:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing worthwhile doing is ever easy. I once read two entire books on the history of a person, and another on the history of a place so I could improve the quality of the articles. Platforms are easier. Me-123567-Me (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ontario_general_election,_2011 you will see that some Ontario Parties have articles. If you click, say, on the Green Party link you will eventually arrive at Green Party of Ontario which will list their web page in external links. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Green Party in Infobox
It seems to me that consensus in the past has been to include parties that currently don't have a seat in the legislature if they have some level of support (usually over 5%). Which is why the Green Party was listed in the 2007 infobox, but not the 2003. Looking for a consensus, either to list only parties that currently have members or to list parties that have a certain level of support (over 5%). Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it was previously decided (where I don't recall) that the Green Party remain, and if they don't win any seats, then we can remove them. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * This decision was made for the federal election, because political pundits predicted a Green win, and the Greens were included in the previous election infobox. The latter isn't true for Ontario, but is the former? 117Avenue (talk) 01:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There's a poll that says the Greens can win Dufferin--Caledon. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it says PC 48%, Green 29%. And the polls section on this page says the Greens have dropped from 8% to 3% province wide. I'm thinking it doesn't look that likely. 117Avenue (talk) 02:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll admit it is true that Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a crystal ball is a policy, so I hope you read it. 117Avenue (talk) 02:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that one I have read. I figure we leave it in, and remove it if no seats are won. Me-123567-Me (talk) 03:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it fails both of the criteria that I listed. Am I missing something? 117Avenue (talk) 04:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Any more comments before it is removed? 117Avenue (talk) 06:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I have a comment. I don't know what you all are talking about - what infobox are you considering removing? Where can I find it? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are discussing the inclusion of the Green Party in the infobox. 117Avenue (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Infoboxes should only be used for parties that currently have elected members. How can it be argued that the Green Party should be included in the infobox but not the the Freedom Party or the Libertarian Party? I can understand probably including a party that does not have any elected members if there were only four parties running candidates, but in Ontario, and most other provinces and territories, there are numerous other parties running candidates. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be easily argued that the Greens can be included, but other parties can be excluded, considering that the Greens picked up over 8% of the vote province-wide and ran third in several riding's. While combined every other party combined received just over 1% of the vote.
 * My original question was about what the criteria was, if the criteria is holding a seat in the legislature, that they should be removed. If the criteria is a level of electoral viability (over 5% of the vote?). Than they should be included.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * How do we know how much support the other parties have if they are not included in polling? Pollsters pick and choose which parties they want to include in polling. As well just because a party received a certain amount of support in the previous election doesn't mean they will do as well in the next election, the Green's federally lost a lot of support from 2008 to 2011. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

RfC on Green Party & Litmus test for including Parties in InfoBox
Should the Green Party be included in the infobox? Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By implication, this RfC is also asking the question: What is the test we should use to decide which parties should be in the InfoBox?  Someone has suggested the requirement that the party received 5% of the votes or 5% of the seats in the prior election.  Others have suggested that the Party and its leader must meet the WP notability requirements. --Noleander (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - Based on a couple of factors: (1) the Green party is a widely recognized, notable party; and (2) the leader for the Green party meets the WP notability requirements.   Above in this Talk page is a discussion of a litmus test for parties: they must have 5% of the votes or seats, etc.  I would suggest that that test should be utilized only when the party is non-notable or the leader is non-notable.  --Noleander (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that all parties, so long as they are registered, are generally notable, as are their leaders by virtue of office. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Every party is notable, that doesn't mean they get to be in the infobox. After the election, only parties who have won seats are included. 117Avenue (talk) 01:09, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify my point: I think a party should be included only if the party is notable, and the leader of the party is notable.  That excludes fringe or obscure parties; or small parties that have no-name leaders.  The Green party is very well known, and if its leader for this election (Mike Schreiner) is notable enough to have a  WP article, that is sufficient reason to include them in the InfoBox.  WP should not be taking sides in political elections. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes - Why is this being questioned in the first place? - The Greens are running a candidate in almost every electoral district - they are obviously treating elections as serious business. Wikipedians should not intefere in this democratic process. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see the Ontario Libertarian Party added to the infobox then, they have a notable leader and have been around longer then the Green Party. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 21:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But they're not running candidates in every riding, nor are the polling above 1%. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know they are not running candidates is every riding? Have you done a poll prompting the Libertarian Party to see what they are polling at? Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out Ontario general election, 2011 (candidates) to see who is running in each Electoral District Ottawahitech (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Only if they have a seat. I'll say the same as at Talk:Yukon general election, 2011. If the party has a seat prior to the election then include them in the box. After the election include them if they win a seat. Other parties can be given in the body of the article. By the way, why is the same discussion on multiple pages? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ec) Wouldn't you also include a party that had a seat before the election, but lost it, like Canadian federal election, 2008 or Alberta general election, 2008? 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Seats in the province's specific legislature, or seats in Canada in general? Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think province specific, because other jurisdictions are irrelevant. 117Avenue (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't agree that they're irrelevant. They're still in Canada. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What? You think if a party is represented in another jurisdiction then they should be in all provincial infoboxes? Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If not, we'd have to leave out some major parties (federally) speaking, such as the NDP in some Maritime provinces. Carolynparrishfan (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The NDP are left out of infoboxes in PEI and New Brunswick because they failed to win a seat. Seeing know federal party has an affiliated party in every province and territory it would not make sense to include a party in a provincial or territorial infobox just because they have a federal seat. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 10:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @117Avenue, the party would be included up to the time that the results were given and removed after that. @Me-123567-Me and Carolynparrishfan, just in the particular province. To include a party because they held a seat in another province or at the federal level wouldn't work as that would mean having the BQ in every box. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't, as they only run in one province. It's still limited to running in that particular provincial election. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No federal party has an affiliated party in every province. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 16:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Me-123567-Me, you're not making any sense. Are you saying that the NDP of New Brunswick should be listed in the 38th New Brunswick general election infobox, because the NDP of Ontario currently have seats? They're different parties! 117Avenue (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * CambridgeBayWeather, you asked why this is on several different talk pages? Because it seems that whenever we have a new election page come up, this situation comes up again and again. This is partially due to the fact that we can't reach consensus on this issue. Bkissin (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If a party has a seat, barring an established standard. I would prefer to have a consensus on listing parties based on a standard of electoral viability (over 5% in previous elections & current polling average). However, there does not seem to be a consensus on that. Therefore, lacking that standard, the only fair standard is parties that hold seats since it would be ridiculous to list each registered party in the infobox. Rather than discussing whether a particular party should be included, a standard should be established that can be applied to ALL parties.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly! Adding parties without representation, while the justification may be there to do so, opens a can of worms that has been reopened too many times before. Some people will defend the justification, while others will bring up issues of conflict of interest or attempting to influence election results. It is safer to err on the side of caution and only add parties with representation in the body to the leaders infobox. As for other parties, they are still more than able to be put in the results infobox. Bkissin (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So we have consensus to remove the Green Party of Ontario from the infobox until election night? 117Avenue (talk) 00:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry I am lost - how did you come to this conclusion? The question was:Should the Green Party be included in the infobox? and all I see is two yes~ Ottawahitech (talk)
 * I see three yes's, and six no's. 117Avenue (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a vote, nor is it up to you to close it. It's up to an admin. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't need an admin just an uninvolved editor. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Of which 117Avenue is very involved. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And how do we get an uninvolved editor? 117Avenue (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So, no consensus means no change? 117Avenue (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's usually what it means. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And for the record, I think the litmus test should be whether polling companies judge a party important enough to include in polls. Esn (talk) 04:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Leger poll
The Sun article has the NDP at 29: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/09/18/tories-grits-neck-and-neck-poll ; while the link has them at 26%. Which one is it? -- Earl Andrew - talk 04:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say 26 since the actual Ledger poll lists them at 26.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 12:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Infobox, seats or over 5% support.
Should the criteria for inclusion in the infobox be holding a seat in the legislature or electoral viability (5% support based on the previous election results/current polling average)?Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all parties are mentioned in polling so polling shouldn't matter. We wouldn't put an "other" section in the infobox. Are the Green Party invited to take part in the leaders debate? Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you think the criteria should be holding a seat?Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @MrNoFunny: your question is a bit duplicative of the RfC immediately above on the Green party.  It may be less confusing if we just focused on that RfC for now, and consolidated the discussion in one place.  You could contact the originator of the RfC and see if they would object to amending the RfC so it includes your question (which it does, anyway, by implication). --Noleander (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I used the question to try and take focus away from an individual party, and establish a standard to be used by ALL parties.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added your question (which is a good question) to the RfC above. So if anyone wants to repsond to it, please do so in the RfC section above. --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the only fair way. As we should all know parties popularity can rise and fall quite quickly, let alone in four years. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that the criteria should be whether pollsters consider the party important enough to consistently poll for it in the run-up to the election. If that is the case, I think it's safe to say that the party has become part of the mainstream dialogue. Esn (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We should follow the lead of the media. Do they generally talk about the three parties or the four parties?  TFD (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This article is a stub?
Who rated this article a stub of low importance? I am curious to find out how these things work at Wikipedia. --Ottawahitech (talk) 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * User:Canadian Paul tagged the article as a stub of low importance to the Canadian project on November 18th, 2007, when it looked like this. Although no one has yet created the Ontario general election, 2015 article, it would likely be tagged as low importance as well.  TFD (talk) 19:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TFD. I guess this means that no one at Wikipedia is updating ratings of 2007 articles? Ottawahitech (talk) 02:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You can follow the link to the Canada project and discuss it with them. TFD (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to me the article has just changed to "important". However, it is still classed as a "stub" (which it is definitely not). I wonder how active the Canada Project is? Ottawahitech (talk) 08:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Disappearing information
Not sure how many participants here are aware that content related to elections is being deleted on a regular basis. I understand that Wikipedia has to maintain a certain standard of quality, but what I cannot figure out is why candidates of one party are all notable enough to merit articles on Wikipedia, while those belonging to other parties are being systematically eliminated. Ottawahitech (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Unless the candidates were previously elected the vast majority would not be important enough to have a Wikipedia page. I assume you're talking about the Liberal candidates when you say "candidates of one party are all notable enough to merit articles on Wikipedia", but they don't all have articles. When you click on their names it bring you to a page on all the Liberal candidates that have been nominated, which is what's done federally. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 14:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the Liberal Party lists all 107 candidates with clickable/wikified links on Wikipedia, while other parties, including major ones, show only a small portion of their candidates. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Many of those links are just redirects to a single omnibus candidate list. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLITICIAN. Most Liberal candidates are notable because they are MPPs, while most minor party candidates are not.  Many candidates of even major parties may not be significantly notable to have their own articles.  Some candidates may be notable, but editors are not following correct policies in creating their articles.  Could you provide a specific example?  TFD (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * And if they weren't notable before running, then they aren't notable unless they get elected. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * TFD: You say that MOST Liberal candidates are notable, but ALL Liberal candidates have wikified (hot) links. While, for example, only 23 (out of 107) PC candidates have wikilinks. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2011_Progressive_Conservative_candidates,_Ontario_general_election Ottawahitech (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well what do you expect me to do about that? TFD (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe we all share the hope that many Ontarians will turn to Wikipedia to get information. Unfortunately this will not happen if casual visitors perceive Wikipedia to be biased in election coverage. This is the reason I thought others would be interested in exploring the reasons why one party seems to be better represented? Ottawahitech (talk) 04:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Liberals would be better represented because they have more seats. However, articles are written by volunteers.  If you think more candidates are sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, then go ahead and write them.  If you think there are Liberal candidates that are not notable, then propose their articles for deletion.  You don't expect me to write them, do you?  TFD (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So I guess you are not aware that content related to elections is being deleted from Wikipeidia on a regular basis? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Content is removed from across Wikipedia on a regular basis. Could you provide an example of something removed that should not have been?  TFD (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope that the deletion process at Wikipedia is above-board, but I don't really know. All I am saying is that it may be perceived to be biased by those not familiar with the rules because it is obvious that candidates of one party are receiving more coverage than candidates of all other parties, major or not. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that of all 107 Liberal candidates, only 2 who aren't sitting MPP's have their own pages, every other candidate does not have their own page. Rather, they wikilink to Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not biased in favour of or against any political party; however, we're also not bound by "public service" requirements that we give "equal coverage" to every candidate in an election. Rather, we're bound by Wikipedia-specific policies such as the verifiable use of reliable sources to demonstrate notability. Just to go over how this works:
 * 1) An elected MP, MPP or MLA, regardless of what party he or she is affiliated with, will always have an article, because he or she actually holds elected office; this includes people who are newly elected next week.
 * 2) An unelected candidate, regardless of what party he or she is affiliated with, is not entitled to a standalone article just for being a candidate, but generally may have an independent article only if he or she is already notable enough for other things, prior to standing as a candidate, that he or she would already have qualified for an article anyway. Victor Fedeli, for example, already had an article because he served as mayor of a reasonably large city before running for office. However, candidates are entitled to be listed in an omnibus list such as Ontario Progressive Conservative Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election or Ontario Liberal Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election — and if the list exists (and, hello, where is the PC list?), the candidate's name can be a redirect to it.

Invariably, every time an election comes along, we get bogged down in debates accusing us of being biased in favour of one party or another, because invariably the party that's currently in power has more candidates with their own articles than the opposition parties do. Put simply, however, they end up with more standalone articles because more of their candidates are already officeholders.

One of the problems with giving unelected candidates their own articles is that such articles have a remarkable tendency to end up reading like the kind of self-penned biography that the candidate would be sending out on their own campaign literature — because 99 times out of 100, the article was copied and pasted from the candidate's campaign literature and/or posted by someone on their campaign staff. The important thing to remember is that we are not the media; we are an encyclopedia. Our job here is not to provide election coverage in the sense that the Toronto Star or the CBC do; our job here is to reflect, as best we can, the long view of history, not the minutiae of daily news. So for the most part, giving "coverage" to individual candidates is not our role here — our primary job is to write good, properly encyclopedic articles about the people who readers are still going to be looking for information about five or ten or 20 years from now. And while there's always the potential for a few rare exceptions, as a general rule that will be the people who were sitting MPPs before the election, the people who become newly elected MPPs after the election, the party leaders, a few "star candidates" and almost nobody else.

I note, however, that even a good many of the candidates on the Liberal list are just name and riding followed by an "empty section" tag — and several who do have information listed are going to need to be pruned back for WP:BLP reasons too. So it's not that people have been putting exhaustive levels of work into Liberal candidates in a way that they haven't for PC or NDP or Green candidates; the only discernible difference is the redirects. Bearcat (talk) 19:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Further, I now see that this discussion likely originated in questions about the notability or non-notability of Randall Denley. To clarify, thus, Denley is not notable as a politician unless he wins next week; he might be sufficiently notable as a journalist, but simply asserting that he's been a journalist for 20 years — which is all that the article in question did — doesn't properly demonstrate that.
 * Rather, to be considered notable as a journalist, you need to be able to add sources which demonstrate that he was earning national recognition (awards, coverage in other media, etc.) for his work as a journalist, which is sourced to references that are explicitly discussing his work as a journalist and not merely mentioning that he worked as a journalist in the context of covering him as a political candidate. That is, without sources that are specifically about his journalism, he cannot be considered notable under our rules. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls
I know some wikipedians regularly update Ontario_general_election,_2011, so I was surprised to see this reference in one of the articles about a candiate: Who's ahead in your riding? http://www.thestar.com/staticcontent/1058980. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are just local breakdowns from the Forum Research poll that's already listed here for September 22–23, 2011 (the 35-35 tie). I've removed it from the candidate's article, because for one thing it's not our place to speculate about the electoral prospects of an individual candidate one way or the other, and for another thing the margin of error on those individual riding samples is through the fricking roof. At the macro level, we provide overall polling numbers in this article, because that provides a snapshot of the trend over the course of the campaign — but at the individual candidate level, the only number we give a hoot about is the final ballot count that Elections Ontario certifies at the end of the process. And that's true regardless of whether a candidate is polling ahead of or behind his main opponent — until the actual ballots are actually counted on the actual day of the actual election, it's not our job to give a nugget one way or the other. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Randall Denley - Wikipedia procedures not being followed?
I have a question in regards to Randall Denley: The article about him was deleted from Wikipedia after it was discussed here: Articles for deletion/Randall Denley. The decision ("Result") was to redirect all Randal-Denley-wiki-links here: Ontario_general_election,_2011_(candidates). Howerver, it seems that the wiki-links are now directed here: Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. In other words, if one clicks on Randall Denley they end up not where the AFD discussion said it should.

My question is: why is the page being re-directed to a different article than the Result of the AFD (Articles For Deletion) discussion?

(I hope I am making sense to everyone, both expert and novice?) Ottawahitech (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the PC candidates article was created after the AfD resolved, and is a more appropriate target for the information. Moreover, it's consistent with similar articles for previous elections. (This should also be done for all candidates for whom there is no WP article, redirecting to the appropriate party's candidate page.) Mind  matrix  16:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying it is OK to change a re-direct decision made by a Wikipedia admin at an AFD? (Articles for deletion/Randall Denley)? Ottawahitech (talk) 11:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Admins execute actions based on community consensus - they do not make unilateral decisions. Further, that AfD did not have the involvement of editors who focus on Ontario or Canada-wide elections, so they were likely unfamiliar with the option of redirecting to party candidate articles. Mind  matrix  14:33, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that at Wikipedia article deletions are expected to be carried out as a result of communty consensus. In the case of Randall Denley the article was effectively deleted and re-directed to another article on September 25. However on September 27 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Randall_Denley&action=history ) the same article was re-directed to another article, this time it appears, without community consultation, I think? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The second sentence of my comment addressed the reason for this. Mind  matrix  01:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * An AFD decision is not a permanent binding edict that can never be revised at all; rather, it's a matter of circumstance. For example, if Denley wins his seat next week, or if someone comes along with a good, properly referenced article that sufficiently clarifies his notability as a journalist, he'll be allowed a standalone article again on the grounds that the new article is making a stronger and more credible claim of notability than the first version did. And a redirect can always be revised to point somewhere else, if a more appropriate target becomes available after the discussion closes; the only reason AFD had to choose the target it did was because the PC candidates list didn't exist yet.
 * An AFD decision is certainly binding in the sense that you can't just override it by arbitrarily reinstituting the original article with no further improvements. But it doesn't have to be permanently upheld in the sense that one can never even change where the redirect is pointing to. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * OK I had no idea that it is OK at Wikipedia to re-re-direct a re-direct issued when an admin closes an AFD (Article For Deletion) discussion. To me this seems like a technicality being employed to circumvent community consensus? Ottawahitech (talk) 17:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why wouldn't this be OK - a better target for the redirect presented itself, so it was used. Should we observe the AfD result irrespective of future changes, for example if the individual is elected and would thus warrant an article? You've been here for four years, you should know how this works by now. Mind  matrix  01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Incidentally it is of no real benefit for political candidates to have Wikipedia articles that anyone may edit which tend to rank higher in searches then their own campaign websites. It is often impossible to write an article for candidates who have received very little news coverage outside their election campaigns.  And it may be harmful to individual candidates whose only coverage may be a stupid comment or prior indiscretion that briefly becomes notable.  TFD (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that elections should not be covered by Wikipedia until after they have happened? Ottawahitech (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an odd interpretation of the comment by The Four Deuces. What was said was "no real benefit for political candidates to have Wikipedia articles", not "elections should not be covered by Wikipedia". I agree with The Four Deuces only insofar as the politician is not otherwise notable. Mind  matrix  01:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)


 * See also Subjects notable only for one event policy and related guidelines. TFD (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Endorsements
Why do the other parties get to list who has endorsed them and not the Green Party? Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe people didn't know they got the endorsement. It has been added, was there really a need to start a section here about it? Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 19:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, because reverted my addition of it, and rather than start a revert war I'd like to find out his rationale. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I read the link and it's not an endorsement of the Green party. It's not even an endorsement of a local candidate, it's saying that there are two viable choices in the riding, one of which is the Green Party candidate. That is why I removed the content.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. At the very least it's endorsing both the Greens and the PCs. Me-123567-Me (talk) 20:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Leaving it there creates a false perception that the Orangeville Banner has endorsed the Green Party, which it hasn't. It hasn't even endorsed the local candidate. And even if it had, local candidate endorsement are not listed under this section.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I just read it and it's not an endorsement of the Green Party. Newfoundlander&amp;Labradorian (talk) 23:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it the same way, not an endorsement. OTOH, The Toronto and Ottawa Sun's endorsement of 'none of the above' is the same text is it not? Is that one 'endorsement' or two? Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)