Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  06:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 1940 Canadian federal election

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As a compromise position at a time when the notability of non-winning election candidates was still a matter of debate, consensus started to permit non-winning candidates to be given mini-bio subsections in merged lists. So I'll grant that all of these were good faith creations at the time. However, consensus has now deprecated that, so that lists of this type are now permitted only to follow the table format demonstrated by Liberal Party of Canada candidates, 2015 Canadian federal election: their names can be present in the table, but per WP:BIO1E we're not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore. Non-winning candidates simply aren't a matter of enduring public interest for that fact itself — if they're not notable enough for a standalone article, then they shouldn't have the content equivalent of a standalone article embedded into a list either. None of these lists are even comprehensive — the closest to a complete list in the entire bunch is 2006, which includes just 13 candidates out of a possible 308. If there were actually any editorial will to get these cleaned up for comprehensiveness and the removal of the biographical sketches, then I'd happily leave them alone — but that cleanup simply isn't and hasn't been happening at all, so the ones that aren't conforming to the rules they have to conform to need to go. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2017 August 22.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:08, 22 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I've updated the 1940 article to the proper format (for one province), and I'll suggest that the nomination for that page should be withdrawn accordingly. I could add the other provinces and update the other pages as well (though not right away); given that the subject matter is considered encyclopedic, I'm wondering if it would make sense to simply move the pages out of the main article space until such time as they've been properly updated. CJCurrie (talk) 05:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to support that alternative as well. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep All - Bearcat is completely misrepresenting BIO1E when they say we are "not allowed to maintain an entire biographical mini-article about each individual candidate anymore." That is nowhere in the guideline, nor should it be — I would advocate IAR to trump any such nonsense even if that were in the guidelines, which it is not. The rest of the nomination is purely an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not misrepresenting anything whatsoever. The rule for candidates most certainly is that if they do not qualify for a standalone article, then we are not allowed to simply paste the same depth of content about them into another article and keep it just because that other article is titled as a list instead of a standalone bio. BIO1E and BLP1E apply to all articles which contain information about people, not just to standalone biographical articles titled with an individual person's name — lists of people are still subject to the exact same content policies that govern what we can or cannot say about a person in any other article that might contain biographical information. And as for cleaning them up being an editing matter, the issue has been lingering for years without anybody taking on the task of doing anything about it — there is a point beyond which "could be cleaned up" ceases to be a compelling rationale anymore for keeping content that isn't getting cleaned up. And I suppose YMMV, but at least to me seven years of nobody actually caring about cleaning these up does fall on the blow it up and start over side of that line. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep nowhere in 1E does it say that such "mini-articles" are not permitted. As Carrite already said, this is a gross misrepresentation. CJK09 (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1E doesn't have to specifically mention "mini-articles" to be applicable — it deprecates maintaining any extended biographical content at all about 1E's beyond mentioning their name where it's contextually relevant to do so, and doesn't have to individually readdress every possible form that such deprecated content might be presented in. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete mini articles about candidates who did not win are clearly against our policy and guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Notability policies only apply to articles, not sections within articles. In fact, it is entirely appropriate and in many cases recommended to merge such non-notable topics into sections within a larger, notable article. And in any case, AFD is not cleanup, and if the topic is notable, which nobody has explained why it isn't and even Bearcat implied that it is by citing, and not nominating, an article that is in the so-called "proper" format, then it should be kept and cleaned up. Smartyllama (talk) 19:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, this has been over seven years of not getting cleaned up, and there has to be a deadline beyond which if an article still hasn't been cleaned up it doesn't get to sit around anymore continuing to wait for cleanup that isn't happening. And secondly, notability policies do apply to sections within articles; for example, a "list of people from city" is not allowed to contain non-notable entries at all, and articles are not allowed to contain extended biographical sketches of people who are named in them but don't qualify for standalone BLPs. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Wrong. See WP:NODEADLINE. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a user essay, not a binding policy, so I'm entirely within my right to have and express different views as long as I explain my reasoning in depth (which I did) and don't just rest on "I can ignore that just because it's an essay" arguments (which I didn't). Bearcat (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all. These candidates could be listed in individual election articles, but there's no justification for lumping them all together in one big list. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean exactly what was done? There are separate articles for each election. I'm not sure what you're suggesting, or what you think is being done here. Smartyllama (talk) 12:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are separate articles for each election already — Clarityfiend's whole point was that those articles vitiate the need to maintain these articles alongside those. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep notable subject. The rest might be an editing issue if it is a real issue at all. Agathoclea (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is a real issue, and these people are not notable subjects. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The notability guidelines relate solely to what topics are suitable for an entire article and have nothing to say about what information may, or may not, be included as part of a broader article. Thincat (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Our notability standards most bloody certainly do govern what can or cannot be included as part of a broader article. BLP1E/BIO1E, for instance, do not just apply to standalone biographies, but govern how much we are or are not allowed to say about an individual who falls under it in any article: an article about an event is not allowed to contain BLP1E-related biographies of individual participants in it; an article about a company is not allowed to maintain biographical sketches of individual people who work at that company, and on and so forth. Our standards for the notability of individual people pertain to all articles, and not only to standalone biographies titled with a person's own name. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That is, I think, mistaken. WP:BLP policy certainly applies everywhere but you cited WP:BIO1E which is part of the notability guidelines. WP:N says (nutshell) " The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." The first paragraph says "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." It also says "although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles." so this is a matter for talk page consensus, not deletion. WP:BIO1E is part of WP:Notability (people) which in general refers back to WP:N. Here, I accept, the nutshell says "Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a standalone list article." (italics added). WP:Stand-alone lists is referred to which simply suggests what might be done "typically". BLP apart, all this is guidance and people should read and understand it as best they can and then form a considered opinion. Such matters are decided by consensus and people are not to have their !votes rejected if they do not !vote in a particular way. The hard rules you refer to do not exist. People are allowed (but are not required) to adopt strict rules for notability though the guidelines suggest not to do this. If there are BLP matters that is another matter entirely and potentially contentious material must be referenced or removed. Thincat (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, there is no rule that we can't maintain a list of the candidates — there is a legitimate question as to whether such lists are necessary if they simply reduplicate information already present in the election's basic results tables, but that's a separate matter from this. But the rules do dictate that the list cannot contain extended biographies of any individual candidate who doesn't qualify to have a full standalone biography located at his or her own name — if a person does not qualify for a full standalone biography located at their own name, then keeping the exact same content about them, just because the article's title isn't their name, is not an alternative path to retention. Bearcat (talk) 14:09, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting all to allow further discussion

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade;  &sect; ( Message ) -  14:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Come on, closer, step up to the plate. This is not a hard call. Carrite (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2017 (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.