Talk:2014 Rhode Island gubernatorial election

Healey Being Included in the Infobox
For some reason, two editors removed a viable, notable candidate from the election infobox at the top of the page.

For those reasons, I'm putting him back on. RhodeIslandGreen (talk) 21:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Healey will be on the ballot as the moderate party candidate (http://ripr.org/post/cool-moose-s-bob-healey-running-ri-governor)
 * The moderate party is a RI Secretary of State-recognized political party.
 * Last election, the moderate party was included on the election infobox
 * He is a well-known RI political figure
 * He won 39% of the vote for Liutennant Governor in 2010
 * I can find no WP guidelines related to election infobox's, so shouldn't this default to notability?
 * As per WP:Notability, he certainly fits the criteria, even if you're specifically talking about the 2014 election
 * Every RI news outlet is covering his campaign
 * As for polling, he hasn't been included because the candidacy is new, and only internal polls have been released. Besides, that shouldn't be the critieria for notability.
 * The poll tiller54 thinks should preclude Healey from being included is an old, internal (partisan) poll released for political reasons. (http://wpri.com/2014/09/15/fung-releases-poll-showing-close-race-with-raimondo/)
 * The RI board of elections determined that GOP objections to Healey's being on the ballot are unfounded http://www.providencejournal.com/politics/content/20140917-healey-wins-gop-challenge-to-his-moderate-party-candidacy-for-r.i.-governor.ece
 * The reason is that per long-standing consensus, candidates are only included in the infobox if they're polling at 5% or more. Yes, he's on the ballot, and he's listed in the article, but until and unless he polls at or over 5%, he won't be included in the infobox. As for the last election, the Moderate Party won 6% of the vote, hence they met the threshold for post-election inclusion. The issue here is not WP:NOTABILITY but WP:WEIGHT. See for example the discussions here and here. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking the discussions, but I don't see a "long standing consensus" that polling above 5% is necessary for inclusion. In fact, you seem to be the only one arguing that, and enforcing that guideline by yourself (not that it's horrible,I just don't see a large concensus). I listed numerous reasons validating the weight given by inclusion in the infobox, but you're just sticking to this red line of 5% polling. User:Muboshgu suggested that the criteria should be that the candidate is impacting the race, in which case I can provide numerous citations that this is the case for Healey. First, there's the headline stating exactly that. Then there's the Providence Journal article detailing how the GOP tried to remove Healey, for fear of the impact he will have. This might be a close race, and pulling even below 5% can easily impact the election. The GOP knows this.


 * If you look at the Louisiana discussion, note that most 'no' votes admit polling is useless, and instead voted against inclusion for notability reasons. In the other discussion, you're again the only one arguing for a hard and fast polling guideline. RhodeIslandGreen (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not recall saying "polling is useless", nor seeing anyone say that either. Polling is not useless, though it is not necessarily accurate. Why should we include someone in the infobox who is listed on his Wiki page as a "perennial candidate"? That would violate WP:WEIGHT, as Tiller cited on the Louisiana page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * And even further, I see you just created the page four days ago. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I made Healey's page because it's odd he didn't have one. He has influenced election laws in Rhode Island, and his court cases have been cited in other states regarding election laws (not that his individual page is relevant). Every Rhode Island news organization sees fit to give him coverage (a media market of nearly 2 million). He's a perennial candidate, but he came within 10 points of winning the lieutenant governor race in 2010.


 * Based on the previous standard you proposed ('"Polling at 5%" is arbitrary and meaningless. Is there any evidence that Sarvis is truly impacting this election? '), do you dispute that Healey fits that criteria? Please actually read the bullet points, and the articles I cited further down demonstrating impact. Or, just go to google news and search for the relevant news within the last week. You will see he has gotten significant coverage, and is  treated as a serious candidate. RhodeIslandGreen (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, he was over 15 points away from winning the 2010 Lt. Gov. election, although his unusually strong performance seems mostly due to the fact that there was no Republican nominee. But, his performance in that race or any other is irrelevant, as is your assertion that Healey should be included in the infobox because you posted a list of bullet points that includes things like "He is a well-known RI political figure" and "Healey will be on the ballot". Unless you can cite a poll that shows he's at at least 5% support (not that that would necessarily mean he'd have any impact on the election whatsoever, but that's a different story), he won't be included in the infobox, per community consensus. Tiller54 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * So far, you have failed to show that there is a consensus there should be a hard and fast 5% rule. There's a consensus that not every candidate should be on the infobox, but I don't see where you get the consensus for 5% polling as a necessity. Also, When talking about how far behind a pol is, I thought you maintain the 100% total, rather than simply subtracting the difference (15 points would need to come from somewhere). I think that makes sense, but I'll defer to your judgement on polling semantics.RhodeIslandGreen (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)