Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart Mackinnon

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 Delete HappyCamper 02:13, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuart Mackinnon

Political ad for non-notable posistion. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 05:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Green candidate for Park Board Commissioner in Vancouver. Even if he were to be elected, the position is of doubtful notability. Doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO and political candidates shouldn't have an article unless they are already notable. If elected to a national or provincial government or to a significant position in local government, they then meet the notability requirements in my book. Capitalistroadster 06:56, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per Capitalistroadster. Eddie.willers 11:51, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless I can have a Wikipedia entry too, I was once co-opted to a town council committee, surely that's more notable than having to go out grubbing for votes? - Just zis Guy, you know? 15:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, city commissions (or candidacy therefor) do not confer notability as such. MCB 23:06, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
• OpinionThe election pages in Wikipedia are somewhat bias towards incumbants. We give them biographies and describe them as real people. The challengers are all just names on a list. However, unless he is the leader the incumbant is no more notable, in the context of an election page, than any of the challengers, yet they are still linked to a biography. This guy is listed here: Vancouver municipal election, 2005. If we link to one person on an election list, then they should all have links. --maclean25 02:11, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I would not describe that as a "bias"; they have links because they have articles, based on being notable for either holding public office or for some other reason, not for being the "incumbent candidate". If any challenger was individually worthy of an article for some reason, he/she would have a link as well. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to assure some some sort of mythical concept of "fairness" in which electoral candidates get articles. MCB 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

This doesn't apply for historical elections, but for current ones Wikipedia is a source of instant information for current elections. Those who control this information do influence readers. Info on one candidate, but not another may be "Systemic bias" (maybe that is the wrong term). Consider this idea that balances Wikipedia policy (on individual articles) while creating an opportunity to communicate more balanced information: Green Party candidates, 2003 Ontario provincial election --maclean25 03:18, 28 October 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.