Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)


 * 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. John254 20:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Prohibitionists in Manitoba (provincial candidates)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Four non-notable individuals running without organization once doth not an article make. At best, this should be merged as a factoid for the List of Manitoba political parties. Also, the complete lack of references makes me think that this original research as well. I have now done some Google searching online and almost everything related to "Prohibitionists in Manitoba" is either a Wiki mirror or articles related to pot. I doubt given the nature of this topic that it could even be expanded into anything meaningful. Cheers, CP 03:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see anyone address the fact that this is original research. I am a member of Wikipedia Canada and obviously if this were about a legitimate political party of any size I would tag this for expansion and leave it be. But it's not. It's four non-notable individuals who ran without organization in one election and there are no sources available other than the bare facts about it. So aside from being original research, it's un-expandable original research. Am I missing some key component of this article? I'll gladly withdraw if I am.Cheers, CP 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not everything uncited is automatically original research. Indeed, in this case I'm not sure how User:CJCurrie would have gone about doing original research on the subject; more likely, he used secondary sources and just failed to cite him.  I'll drop him a line on his talk page to ask, though. Sarcasticidealist 05:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that it was original research just based on the fact that it was uncited. I claimed that it was original research because the sources do not exist and synthesizing four admittedly unrelated candidates under the heading "Prohibitionists in Manitoba" strikes me as very ORish. Original synthesis is still original research. Cheers, CP 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, I misunderstood. That would be OR, you're right.  According to User:DoubleBlue below, though, they "ran together like a political party" (admittedly, I'm not sure of his source on that, either). Sarcasticidealist 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be original research if they each ran as independent candidates on a prohibitionist platform and we were conflating that into a single article — but if the word Prohibitionist actually appeared on the ballot next to their names, then it needs to be treated as a political party whether it was formally organized as one or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article obviously need sources (and these probably aren't available online), but it's a useful stub: a list of which candidates ran under the label and where they ran, suitable for expansion in good time.  I understand the nom, and I won't be too choked if this ends in a delete, as long as there's no prejudice against re-creation in a more fleshed out and sourced form. Sarcasticidealist 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep let it expand. --Brewcrewer 03:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletions.   --  Double Blue  (Talk) 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Obvious keep per the topic of the article.  Needs sourcing, and expansion (if possible). - Rjd0060 04:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. See Manitoba general election, 1903. These candidates ran together like a political party. An article should be written on them and this appears to be a small step in that direction. Tag and seek assistance at Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Articles to improve rather than AfD. Double Blue  (Talk) 04:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Any political party which ran candidates in a state, provincial or federal election should have an election about the party. The individual candidates may not be notable on their own, but the common banner that they ran under most certainly is. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole point of this nomination is that they weren't an organized party, a fact that seems to have been removed from the article. Cheers, CP 05:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my question is did they run specifically under the banner of Prohibitionist, or did they just run on prohibition as an issue with their actual party designation given as "Independent" on the ballot itself? If the former, then we realistically need to treat them as a party whether they were officially organized as one or not; if the latter, then we should probably merge them to a longer list of Independent candidates. IMO, anyway. Bearcat (talk) 05:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wish we had some sources. I searched myself both before and after nomming, but I can't find any, which is what worries me. Haven't heard back from the article's creator either. I would gladly withdraw the nom if proof could be obtained one way or another. Cheers, CP 05:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks as though the emerging consensus is to keep the page. I'm quite happy to accept this result, though I would have been willing to transpose the information to a page on independent candidates in the 1903 election, if the consensus had been to delete.  As regards sources, (i) I took the numerical results from the archives of Elections Manitoba, and (ii) I discovered the affiliation of these candidates through the Winnipeg Free Press.  Unfortunately, I don't have the page citations with me at present and finding them would be a minor hassle ... but I could look it up, if others believe it's important enough.  Please note that Wikipedia's standards for citation weren't fully developed when I created the original page.  CJCurrie (talk) 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspect it would probably be better to redirect anyway, especially if the sources don't pan out. There's certainly a consensus to keep the information, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to keep it at this title if there are verifiability issues. Bearcat (talk) 06:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm certain that the information is verifiable, but it may take me a while to find my source. CJCurrie (talk) 23:46, 5 December 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.