Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Party of Nova Scotia candidates, 2006 Nova Scotia provincial 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   delete. Consensus is that while it might be possible to write an acceptable article under this title, the current article would need to be completely rewritten in order to achieve that. Also, the fact that this is a collection of unsourced BLP's is concerning. No prejudice against re-creating this article as long as it its content is not sufficiently similar to the deleted content. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 16:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Green Party of Nova Scotia candidates, 2006 Nova Scotia provincial election

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The subject of this article is a group of people who are, as individuals, non-notable. Furthermore, there don't appear to be any working links for references and the overall tone is promotional in nature. West Eddy (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. The article subject is in keeping with general practice of having pages like this dedicated to unelected or otherwise non-notable candidates in elections. Unless there has been a discussion I missed where that practice was declared no to no longer be appropriate, this article should be left in place. I do fully agree that it needs a bunch of work to bring the content up to a decent standard, but that is not a reason to delete it. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it can be salvaged, the work should be done now to bring it up to par. The fact that it could be improved is not a reason to keep it. West Eddy (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is, actually. See WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, WP:NOTCLEANUP... postdlf (talk) 14:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but there needs to be good information that can be preserved. Biographies of living persons still need sources, which this doesn't have at the moment. West Eddy (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. The bare list of candidates run in that election could easily be verified from any number of sources. The details in its biographical sketches of the candidates are going to be a little more difficult. These were sourced, to the Green Party's own website, but apparently the links are not working now. I would be shocked if these profiles were not also published in printed campaign materials, which would probably be available at libraries in Nova Scotia if not elsewhere. As there is nothing negative or contentious in this list, there is nothing that requires urgent removal pending such research and verification. postdlf (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nova Scotia-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The existing links can probably all be recovered from the Internet Archive. Certainly the first one can Profile - McGowan, Ken Tassedethe (talk) 17:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. Steps to deal with linkrot in sources are explained here, one step of which is of course looking for archived versions. postdlf (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all such bio group articles for failed candidates should be deleted. If a bio is not worthy of inclusion as a standalone article, it shouldn't be kept a bio in a page like this.  Now, merging sub-notable topics into notable topics is often legitimate.  So, an article writing collectively about the candidates of a party in a particular election could be worthwhile.  That's not what this is.  This is just copy/pasting a to-be-deleted bio articles into a repository of other non-notable bios, so they can sit there indefinitely languishing. Each bio on this page actually stands by itself.  It's an absurd technicality that we delete a bio on its own page, but allow *exactly* the same bio (with no revisions at all) to exist on a page next to other bios (with none of the bios interacting in any way).  Imagine if we did this elsewhere.  Perhaps we should have "List of a musicians in Nova Scotia who didn't get signed to a record label" or "List of authors who didn't get published".  I fully appreciate we do not delete things for being incomplete/imperfect.  My point is there is literally *nothing* hear that would in any way help a future encyclopedic article.  If somebody wants this to be a simple list of 52 candidates with basic info, than it would be easier to directly take that from the appropriate government and/or party web site.  If somebody wants a properly sourced article on the collection of candidates, that would need to be written from scratches using proper independent sources, and non of the self-sourced material could be used.   --Rob (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup – needs more refs, needs updated, some of the bios need to be shortened significantly, and perhaps the article moved to something like "History of Green Party of Nova Scotia", but I think the article shouldn't be deleted. Marikafragen (talk) 00:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You say it needs "more" refs, which implies it already has some. It has no reliable sources.  A distinction needs to be made between "cleanup" and "rewrite".  This can't be "cleaned up".  It needs a rewrite, and none of the current material will be of any use in that task.  --Rob (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete—I've got to go with User: Rob here. This is a collection of BLPs, all of which are totally unsourced.  There are two issues here.  First they are all unsourced BLPs, which means they should be nuked on the spot, BLP being very serious business.  Second, even if they were sourced the article should be deleted anyway on notability grounds.  Sourcing each individual doesn't make the collection notable, it makes the individual notable.  So if one or more of these people can be shown notable by RS, then they should have their own article.  If the slate of candidates as a whole got any press, then this would be the only justification for keeping this article.  It hasn't, so the group of them as a whole is also non-notable.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 15:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, Rob And Livit have it spot on-- Jac 16888 Talk 15:22, 3 May 2012 (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.