Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lori Gadzala
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Lori Gadzala
Delete. Non-notable candidate in election. --GrantNeufeld 21:03, 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 23:40, 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 00:42, 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 00:52, 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)
- 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 00:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. It's just as valid as Grant Neufeld and Matthew McLauchlin. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 01:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- wikipedia users deserve to be able to read about any credible candidate. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Comment. Er, since you put both those on Afd well prior to this vote, I'm not sure I follow... -- JLaTondre 03:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
-
- Either all are deleted, or all kept. Hypocracy only goes so far. --Image:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 06:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Merge as per bearcat.--nixie 06:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for lack of significance and verifiability. This is an encyclopedia, not a local news source. This talk about fairness and hypocricy is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and all that. Friday (talk) 20:56, 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.
