Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tindal

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 - Izehar 22:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Tindal

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. Perhaps the controversy over the nomination deserves a mention in the Green Party article, but otherwise being an IT professional and political activist is not encyclopedic. Delete. Skeezix1000 12:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep see Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 15:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -R. fiend 17:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. feydey 22:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the candidate for a leading party in the election. Nfitz 04:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - I've actually got several times more google hits than this guy [1], and I don't consider myself to be notable enough yet for a Wikipedia article. If indeed he now plays a significant role in Toronto politics, then we should have ample evidence of his notablility within the next several months and can reconsider the decision then. Blackcats 20:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I get about 180 times as many. But counting Google hits isn't research. Uncle G 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, but WP:BIO recognizes the Google test as one method (albeit non-conclusive) of determining whether a subject merits inclusion in the encyclopedia. Skeezix1000 12:51, 16 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 mentions that this person gets are inclusions in "also running in this election" lists in news articles, and a web logger saying that this candidate's web site was the worst of all of the candidates' web sites. At one point, I thought that I had something more substantial, with a search result summary that said that "Chris Tindal led the attack". But upon reading it, it turned out to be a news article about an Ontario ice-hockey player by that name. 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 outside of Wikipedia,and not even as well-reported-upon as xyr namesake ice-hockey player, then that is how Wikipedia should reflect xem: as a one-row entry in an election results table. Delete. Uncle G 07:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per SimonP. Wikipedia is an enclopedic for providing information where there is a demand, and there is a demand for encyclopedic information on candidates like this. Kappa 05:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --- Candidates do not merit articles unless notable for other reasons. 209.202.119.248 14:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Chris is and will be a force on the political stage. If this article is deleted now, you will no doubt see it back very soon.
• Merge with a list of Green Party candidates for the 2006 election. The comment immediately proceeding this one is speculation. When it's fact, then the article can be recreated. --GrantNeufeld 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with list of Green candidates and then Delete. Being a candidate, having a job, and having a few hobbies does not make for good encyclopedic material. --NormanEinstein 21:40, 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 Green Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Bearcat 23:42, 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 00:38, 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 00:54, 21 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.