Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election


 * 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   keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Communist Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

3 people that received at most 120 votes in the Canadian federal elections. We already have Canadian federal election, 2006. No reason to have separate lists. Magioladitis (talk) 08:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Canadian federal election, 2006 Francium12  13:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions.  -- – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:35, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Canadian federal election, 2006 - this doesn't have enough content to be in its own article. -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: My suggestion to merge is based purely on the size of the article. If anyone expands it to the point where merging would bloat the parent article (see below), then consider my !vote a "keep". -- Explodicle (T/C) 15:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - There were 21 Communist candidates running in that election, so there is considerable potential for expansion. Moreover, this information clearly has no place in the main article; if lists of candidates from the various parties were included, it would become extremely bloated. Steve Smith (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This is a series of articles where candidates who are not notable enough for an article of their own are merged. There are similar articles for all the major political parties and for the other recent elections. Communist Party of Canada. It is true that the article is rather lacking in content, quality, and sourcing but the paltry facts given are easily verifiable and I don't think deletion is necessary. I would agree that the content does not belong in the main federal election article. At the very worst I think merging to a new main Communist Party of Canada candidates article would be better than deletion but I see nothing wrong with leaving this article as is and hopeful to improve. Double Blue  (talk) 16:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have no objection to the sort of merger suggested by DoubleBlue. Steve Smith (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No objections here either. -- Explodicle (T/C) 17:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What's the exactly the reason to keep? To have a short bio for every possible candidate? Is anyone of them notable enough? Check Articles for deletion/Anastasis Michael. This person receive in Cyprus (a much smaller country) more votes than the people in the article here. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, my keep reason is that I believe a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR list with reliable sources is quite possible. Length and importance are not content criteria. Double Blue  (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per an established precedent. There have been several afds on these list pages, and the consensus view for some time has been to keep them (although I wouldn't object in principle to Double Blue's suggestion).  By the way, I should clarify that the list isn't complete yet.  CJCurrie (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what's the plan? For every country, for every party, To have a list of its candidates for every election? Can someone explain it to me? Maybe, it's obvious and it's only me not getting it. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's normal for there to be significant coverage about candidates in a federal election but only because they are candidates in a federal election. It is not reasonable to have an article about a person who is only notable for running for election but it is reasonable to have a list of candidates who ran for election. It can be of interest to readers to read such a list and research and compare candidates. Double Blue  (talk) 19:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergeto Canadian federal election, 2006 not important enough to have its own article.--Coldplay Expert (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Minor parties as well as major ones are important enough to include  here.    DGG ( talk ) 03:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have the same opinion for the Indian parties? In India they are hundreds of parties and thousands of candidates. We could reorganise the info but this way to present it doesn't make sense to me. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question with one of my own: if someone wanted to create informative and properly-sourced list pages for Indian candidates, why would this be a problem? CJCurrie (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned above, there are precedents in support of keeping these list pages.  This discussion from 2006 strikes me as relevant.  CJCurrie (talk) 17:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * keep I think DoubleBlue is on the right track, there is no proper location for the content in Canadian federal election, 2006 since all the major parties have articles such as this. Maybe merging into a new article called Minor party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election (I'm open to a better name) would be better, that way it could encompass all non-major parties.--kelapstick (talk) 18:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My thought was that the Communist Party of Canada candidates article could link to the different sub election articles, store those that did not have sub articles yet, list perennial candidates, and perhaps even (given sources) discuss how people become Communist candidates. Going in your direction would work as well but, again, I might make it more general and call it 2006 Canadian federal election candidates and link to all the sub-articles. Still, I don't see much problem with keeping this article where it is and letting it grow. Double Blue  (talk) 01:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I like your 2006 Canadian federal election candidates idea as a name better. My first thought about the merge/non-merge of all non-major party candidates was that it might get to be too large to be a single manageable list.  However the sum of all of the non-major party candidates is under 240, which is less than all the candidates for a single major party (308).  This was not including independents, with independents it is 327, either way I think it would be a manageable list.  By keeping all non-major parties togeather it allows for the inclusion of parties that only ran a few (or one as did the Animal Alliance) candidate, which might not be suitable for a stand alone list (a list of one).  Just a thought. --kelapstick (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per DoubleBlue, CJCurrie and others.  Buck  ets  ofg  00:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per DoubleBlue but no objection to a merge to an article on Communist Party of Canada candidates if content is not lost. Davewild (talk) 09:47, 8 September 2009 (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.