Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Coy

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; a merge may be in order. Ral315 (talk) 07:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Coy

Not notable. Merely being a candidate does not satisfy WP:BIO. Unless someone can add something to the article to show that he is notable for reasons other than simply being a candidate, then I say delete. Skeezix1000 12:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and expand, see Canadian federal election, 2006 (candidates) and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. - SimonP 14:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete nn candidate. Eusebeus 17:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, see Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates. feydey 22:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. What happened? Did someone decide to spam us with one-liners regarding Conservative candidates? If they win, let 'em in. Before that, they're toast. Non-notable toast at that. Ifnord 23:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the above - candidates can become quite notable without winning anything. But this one clearly hasn't yet - only 32 Google hits in reference to his district [1]. (The name "Peter Coy" is pretty common, so I have no ideal how many of the other "Peter Coy" hits are for this guy). Anyhow - Delete. -- Blackcats 20:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is the candidate for a leading party in the election. He will likely finish second, based on past performance, and his party has won this riding before. Though the article could certainly be wikified Nfitz 04:39, 15 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. According to the candidate himself, he has done such things as set up a web site for dentists and sing in a church choir. Other sources either simply include quotes from Coy (all of which are about his opponents) and say nothing at all about Coy, or discuss Joseph Volpe and give a one-sentence mention to Coy as one of the candidates opposing him. 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 then that is how Wikipedia should reflect them: as a one-row entry in an election results table. Delete. Uncle G 07:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, as the other nonentities. This one doesn't even say anything. -R. fiend 19:36, 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)
• Merge with a list of Conservative candidates for the 2006 election. --GrantNeufeld 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with list of Conservative candidates and Delete. Merely being a candidate does not make good encyclopedic material. --NormanEinstein 21:37, 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 Conservative Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election, and unmerge if he wins. Bearcat 23:44, 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)
• Delete per Uncle G. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 07:03, Dec. 26, 2005

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.