Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba 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 Speedily Kept This article was nominated for deletion because error in consistancy of years. The article has now been clarified.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC).

New Democratic Party candidates, 1990 Manitoba provincial election

 * This article was Speedily Kept This article was nominated for deletion because error in consistancy of years. The article has now been clarified.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 00:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is covered else where like in Manitoba general election, 2003. Also the title, intro, and the section about Donald Bailey have nothing to do with each other. Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 13:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to Manitoba general election, 2003. Also, I'm confused: the title says 1990, but the article discusses 2003.  This article says the NDP won 20 seats, while the Manitoba general election, 2003 article says 35.  Also, the only person discussed is someone who lost.  What gives? -- Black Falcon 18:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in accordance with several precedents.
 * Some time ago, Wikipedians had an extensive discussion about the proper method for retaining information about defeated and minor party candidates in national and state/provincial elections. The compromise option we arrived at was to permit "list pages", which would provide short biographical entries for each candidate according to party affiliation.  Not everyone favoured this option, but most participants agreed that it was an acceptable outcome.
 * Wikipedia now has many such "list pages", which have generally attracted little controversy. A few of these pages have been nominated for deletion in the past, and in each case the result was keep.
 * This particular page is currently a stub, and was admittedly in rather rough shape when the nomination was made (the "2003" link was an error). In time, however, it has the potential to become a good repository of information.  Pages such as this should not be deleted.  CJCurrie 23:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. It should be kept pending a cleanup where the name of the other candidates can be added. Given that 20 of the candidates were elected, they may have articles of their own and are certainly eligible for them. Capitalistroadster 00:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per CJCurrie -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 00:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keepify -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:14, 18 February 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.