Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Carmichael (politician)


 * 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 of the debate was No consensus. A merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

John Carmichael (politician)
Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep see Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. another non-article about a non-entity. One has to do more than just run for an office to be encyclopedic. -R. fiend 17:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, see Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. feydey 22:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ifnord 23:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the candidate for a leading party in the election.  He will likely finish second, based on past performance, and his party has won this riding before. And, as I've pointed out before, there's no way I'll ever be voting for this party! Nfitz 04:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Nothing in the article indicates that this person satisfies any of the WP:BIO criteria. Being a candidate for an election doesn't satisfy the criteria, whatever the party.  One has to satisfy the criteria for some other reason, such as for being a candidate who has also been the subject of significant (non-self-sourced) press coverage.  Searching reveals nothing that indicates that this person satisfies the criteria in any other way.  The only things (that aren't sourced directly from the candidate himself) that actually discuss this person at all are articles that say that the Conservative party has such little hope of winning this election, having lost by huge margins in previous elections, that it has decided to simply run "a local car dealer" this time around.  This person gets exactly one sentence.  Being a car dealer does not, in itself, satisfy the WP:BIO criteria, either. Wikipedia is not a hosting service for election candidate statements, nor is it a platform for equalizing how much people know about candidates for office.  It is an encyclopaedia.  If a candidate is known as just a one-line directory entry on a ballot form, or a one-sentence mention for being a no-hope candidate, outside of Wikipedia then that is how Wikipedia should reflect them: as a one-row entry in an election results table.  Delete. Uncle G 07:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, major party candidates for national office satisfy WP:BIO by being of interest to the voters of that constituency. Kappa 05:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. I also disagree with the notion that major party candidates for national office satisfy WP:BIO by being of interest to the voters of that riding. 209.202.119.248 14:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with a list of Conservative candidates for the 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The current consensus on unelected candidates permits a merged page for "X Party's candidates in Y election". This does create its own set of problems, but unless you're prepared to take on the job of proposing an alternate policy, established consensus stands as the final word whether you like it or not. Merge to Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and unmerge if he wins. Bearcat 23:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is this consensus defined. I've read the ongoing debate but my take from reading it, was that consensus had not been reached.  It looked to me like the debate died before consensus was reached, and a vote is still pending.  Is there another discussion that I've missed? Nfitz 00:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Consensus doesn't require a vote; if the discussion dies prematurely, then in the lack of a clearly defined policy statement the results that have actually been applied here in practice stand as the consensus. And that consensus has consistently favoured the merged listpage solution — nobody, to date, has challenged that. Bearcat 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But consensus has consistently not been met anytime that a major party candidate, and even some non-major party candidates, comes up for deletion. I'd say consensus was keep them ... and that's what I thought reading that article. Nfitz 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Uncle G's reasoning. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( TALK )  21:07, Dec. 24, 2005
 * Keep per Paul Hackett. -- JJay 01:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kappa's argument. Endomion 03:50, 26 December 2005 (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.