Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006


 * 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. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

List of ex-officio delegates to the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006 and Endorsements for the Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006

 * — (View AfD)
 * — (View AfD)

Nothing encyclopaedic about these incredibly long lists, and heaven forbid if every attendance list of every political party convention receives the same treatment. Fails most of the criteria of the first of the Five pillars. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. It is not a soapbox or means of self-promotion, a directory, convention list, or party database. We also do not need the voting record for every leadership convention. Agent 86 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a pointlessly long and unneeded list.  Darth griz 98 17:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I honestly do not see the purpose of this article. It is basically just excessively detailed electioncruft.  Some of the table showing the province by province breakdowns could be merged into Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 2006, but this is really too much. Resolute 19:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - First, the content is historically relevant. Second, the Wikipedia list was actually significant in the process of this election; it was by far the most comprehensive account of ex-officio delegates and was cited extensively among commentators and in the mainstream media.  I honestly think this page is a Wikipedia success story. -Joshuapaquin 19:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with Joshuapaquin. Also better cited than most articles. --Falcorian (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joshuapaquin. - Jord 19:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I would be interested in seeing the sources for the mainstream media using this information. If sources can be referenced to create the list, they can be referenced to substantiate the claim that the list was actually cited by the media. I agree with Resolute that it looks like electioncruft; remember that usefulness for a particular group of people is not a criterion for inclusion. Leebo  86  20:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure. Here are some mentions of the ex-officio list.
 * Liberal candidates court 'prestige' delegates; Ex-officio voters could influence convention Camps mount campaigns to woo big-name support; [ONT Edition]. Les Whittington. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Nov 18, 2006. pg. F.2.  Breaks down ex-officio delegate counts  according to Wikipedia.
 * 'Super Weekend' will show who has a chance:; [All But Toronto Edition]. Graeme Hamilton. National Post. Don Mills, Ont.: Sep 29, 2006. pg. A.5.  Mentions ex-officios and uses Wikipedia numbers to indicate how the candidates are doing.
 * Website shows five-way Liberal race:; [Early Edition] Joan Bryden. Edmonton Journal. Edmonton, Alta.: Jul 31, 2006. pg. A.6. As you might guess from the headline, this article is entirely about Wikipedia's numbers.
 * Liberal hopefuls watch Wikis. Jane Taber. The Globe and Mail. Toronto, Ont.: Jul 29, 2006. pg. F.2.  This article isn't about the Wikipedia numbers - it's an MSM article about the Wikipedia articles themselves, specifically the two listed for deletion.
 * I won't post full texts here because of copyright concerns - but if anyone here has ProQuest (Canada Newsstand Major Dailies) access, it can be verified there. -Joshuapaquin 21:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Only because we all know a similar American article would never be deleted. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I wish we had equivalent articles for earlier Canadian leadership races. Cas510 00:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is obviously worth maintaining as a record.  CJCurrie 03:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know how the insinuation of what the result would be for a similar American article or "wouldn't it be nice" addresses the inherent problems with these "articles" and their failure to meet the basic core policies. As for maintaining this as a "record", maybe some other wiki-project would be suitable if the intent is to create some sort of primary record, but this is not the place. This is not a web-host for an organization's data. Finally, regarding the media use of these articles, the citation of the articles by the press doesn't make them encyclopedic. If anything, it supports the assertion that the articles were successful for the purposes of self-promotion. Agent 86 03:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand what you're saying about self-promotion in your nomination and last comment. Are you accusing the Liberal Party of Canada of being the primary editors of these articles? Cas510 06:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - articles can be seen as extensions of the main convention article. Eludium-q36 10:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; I agree that these pages are useful, historically relevant and that they serve what might be a vital and unique purpose within the Canadian political communications process. However, as WP:NOT suggests, Wikipedia is not meant to be a host for websites that would otherwise not exist; in this case, the appropriate home would be a website associated with the Liberal Party of Canada, specifically subpages of http://www.liberal.ca/leadership2006_e.aspx.  An article relating the salient points of 2006 events within the Liberal Party of Canada, including the Leadership Convention, would be quite appropriate; but the extensive content included in these pages should have a home on the Liberal Party's website; if that is not possible due to technical, human resource, political or financial reasons, that is unfortunate but it would not be a reason for using Wikipedia as a replacement website. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 04:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There was an entire article in Canada's most prominent newspaper on this page. - SimonP 22:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - A lot of it is incorrect and it's misleading as many ex-officios changed allegiances as the voting rounds progressed.1130130 02:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joshuapaquin. &mdash; coe l acan t a lk  &mdash; 02:43, 12 January 2007 (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.