Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates


 * 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 was   delete. 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. POLOUTCOMES 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

AAP 2014 Lok Sabha Candidates

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The page is merely a listing of election candidates, thus failing WP:IINFO Stfg (talk) 01:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:IINFO and not notable or useful.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Candidate lists of this type have actually been traditionally allowed on Wikipedia — for just one example out of many, see Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 2011 Ontario provincial election. Truth be told, I'm not fully convinced that they're actually useful under current wikirules — the original 2004-vintage model was that they could hold minibios of candidates who hadn't attained enough notability to stand alone as full articles in their own rights, but the evolution of WP:BLP 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 consensus to kill them off entirely. Like them or not, though, WP:POLOUTCOMES 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 isolated case that's subject to different rules. Keep, although I say that reluctantly — I would favour a broader consensus that they should all be killed as WP:NOTDIR violations, but I can't support treating this one differently from the practice that currently exists as standard procedure for many other elections. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: Though Other stuff exists, Wikipedia is a WP:NOTDIR. Redtigerxyz  Talk 06:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete: WP:POLOUTCOMES does indeed recognise the use of articles like this as dumping grounds for minibios such as alludes to. But this is a classic case of WP:COATRACK. WP:POLOUTCOMES (which is only an essay anyway) also states: "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." 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, New Democratic Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election, has never been through an AfD, so how could it be considered an example of an outcome? (Its history shows one AfD, but this refers to Articles for deletion/Steve Willcott, which resulted in a merge.) 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 because some are. Where we have IINFO, we should delete. --Stfg (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP:POLOUTCOMES says that; I personally put that proviso there, for exactly the reason — the evolution of WP:BLP — 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 frequently 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 into my belief that a new consensus to just kill the lists off entirely should be pursued.) That said, however, the list currently under discussion is already fully compliant with the current BLP-restricted practice, as it doesn't 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 irrelevant to whether this list should be retained or not.
 * And the fact that there hasn't been an AFD on the particular list that's being cited as an example is also irrelevant to the matter: there have been AFDs on other comparable lists in the past which have resulted in either "keep" or "no consensus" closures — see Articles for deletion/Ontario New Democratic Party candidates, 1995 Ontario provincial election, 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 where the consensus was formulated. The example given in an OUTCOMES summary doesn't have 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. Bearcat (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * (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, --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, 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. --Soman (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. 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 Wikipedia. On the other hand, AAP is also the party with the largest number of candidates in the fray, and has received considerable media attention. utcursch | talk 06:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me chime in that we dont need to list on WP all the candidates with a seperate page. Thats what revferences are for.Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.