Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election

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 keep. Mailer Diablo 07:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marijuana Party candidates, 2004 Canadian federal election[edit]

Nothing encyclopedic here that could not go into parent article. There are lots of political parties that don't get elected, and lists such as this serve only to bulk up their on-line presence. brenneman ^{L} 05:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Wikipedia has an established precedent of permiting pages like this, and there is at least one instance of a similar page surviving afd [1]. I don't interpret this as "bulk[ing] up their on-line presence", so much as preserving information for future research. CJCurrie 05:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This "established precedent" seems to be, well, you. Looking at the discussions linked in the CHP pages AfD above, I'm mostly seeing the strong feeling that there is not a place in wikipedia for lists like this. If you'd like a wider net to be cast, feel free to use the WP:PUMP but right now there is no consensus. - brenneman^{L} 05:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with your assessment: I was the one who proposed the compromise and I obviously take a strong interest in the matter, but I'm certainly not the only one who supports the continued existence of such pages. The list pages provided a functional resolution to a bitter debate, and they've worked as a compromise for over a year. CJCurrie 05:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above. It is useful to store information without clogging up the Wikipedia with articles cribbed if not copied from the website. Capitalistroadster 05:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as CJCurrie pointed out, it is a reasonable compromise. Useful information for future research on Canadian elections. Note that Wikipedia is not paper. Luigizanasi 05:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above :: Colin Keigher 05:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie. —GrantNeufeld 06:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments. -Rob 06:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An article on the Party is a different matter, but failed candidates are not notable. --kingboyk 06:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as status quo compromise. This 'List of...' article is a proactive alternative to individual candidate pages that spring up every election. Theoretically (in my mergist fantasy), all candidates get a redirect page to this kind of list page (or, more practically, as it is practised, all candidates get merged/redirected to such a page once someone creates an article on them). This page solves some rather annoying things, like endless afds on electoral candidates who just want the free ad space and get it for at least the 5 days the afd takes (hint: don't take it to afd, just merge/redirect it to the list pages) and a one-stop shop to monitor for abusive or peacock descriptions of the candidate (opposed to monitoring hundreds of pages during that grace period candidates are normally given during an election). This topic had a centralized discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates; and this proposal came up here: Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates#A mergist's solution. --maclean25 07:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, reading Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Legislative candidates, that this compromise has any more consensus than any other. I'm also not sure we need seperate lists for each party, when they are of these lengths. I think I'd be inclined to keep merging these lists to a point where they aren't unwieldy and aren't potential forks and aren't granting undue balance. On the last point, do the major parties also have lists of their failed candidates? If not, we are creating articles on an undue balance basis. At the moment, delete. I could see a value in Candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election, but we're not debating that here. Hiding talk 07:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CJCurrie. NoIdeaNick 09:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per CJCurrie if there is an established precedent for these articles. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie. --Ter e nc e Ong 13:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm at a loss why a party that got way way less than 1% overall (yes, individual ridings varied but they competed in what, 5 ridings tops??? even less than the other party articles Brenny put up today) needs an article about a particular election outcome. I think merging this stuff with the main party article is the way to go. To those that cite other party articles, as examples that it should be done this way, I suggest perhaps that other minor party articles need the same merging/purging treatment too. Nothing much more could ever be said here, could it? It is with great and over-riding (get it?) joy that I support Mr. Brenny in his noble endeavour. (KIDDING!!! about the noble part I mean...) and therefore I must suggest that the right thing to do here is Merge with redirect... (from the GRR airport, yay for wireless access) ++Lar: t/c 15:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the Christian Heritage Party. I find this information useful, and I find its unmerged location helpful.Captainktainer 16:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per comments above Funky Monkey (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vanishingly small amount of encyclopedic information in this article, and the others. Why do we care what some irrelevant loser (yes, really, he lost) describes himself as? Why is the percentage information not properly in context in the main article about the election? Why do we care a fig, frankly, who failed to get a single candidate elected and who, judging from the article were of approximately zero impact at all levels. Add a passing mention to a main article, and delete. -Splash^talk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to the first point: the page is a work-in-progress, and more information will be added. CJCurrie 19:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC) Also, the above user has no prior contributions apart from the CHP afd. CJCurrie 19:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...and apart from my other 25,000 or so. Deleting it now will save you the trouble of writing a collection of nn-bios on the used car salesmen that lost elections. Add some encyclopedic statistics to a main article and move on. -Splash^talk 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - To the first point: my apologies, but you signed anonymously the first time (subsequently corrected). In any case, I'll reiterate that an afd decision and afd precedent supports the compromise. CJCurrie 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - One prior AfD decision (that was probably wrong) and little to no precedent. I don't think that either justify spending pixels explaining what someone with <1% of the vote "describes himself as". Adding a summary percentage somewhere relevant, would be fine, of course. I don't understand the reluctance to do so and be done with. -Splash^talk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess we'll have to disagree on the latter point. To the former: it's not just one decision, it's a full year's worth of precedent on this forum. CJCurrie 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A minor party, but at least a notable one. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notable for what? All they seem to have done is sort-of exist briefly, once. -Splash^talk 19:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- They still exist. CJCurrie 19:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have the run in any elections other than in 2004? What I'm getting at is that neither the party nor the people have ever had an impact on anything and so don't belong anywhere, save a mention that the party scored a vote or two in the main election article. That really is all they've done, right? Or have they done something else that is mentionable? -Splash^talk 19:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - They fielded candidates in 2000 and 2006 (and they didn't exist before 2000). The party most certainly did have an impact on the national debate on cannabis legislation. I believe it's established that the individual candidates don't (automatically) deserve bio pages, but they remain public figures and merit some coverage in a review of the nation's political history. Anyway, I'm not sure this debate is getting us anywhere. CJCurrie 19:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not sure that is established, and I'm reasonably conversant with AfD. I don't think that a single AfD in which the key assertion was "other articles exist" i.e. a repetition of the argument used here, making it at best a tail-biting assertion. The statistical info in this article can be and already is elsewhere. There is not much added by this article: I mean, why does it matter that "Zupansky has described himself as a business owner and salesperson"? The only reason this debate might not get us anywhere is if people decide not to engage in it: asserting that it should be overruled by a largely non-existent precedent. -Splash^talk 20:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the party is notable and this information could be useful for scholarly research. Wstaffor 23:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:26, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie and others. Ground Zero | t 04:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie. — nath a nrdotcom ^{(T • C • W)} 04:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJCurrie. Bucketsofg 22:34, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep informative. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(esperanza) 2006-04-20 07:48
Delete. The article about the party is fine (and is not up for deletion that I know of). This "list of failed candidates" page, on the other hand, is not inherently encyclopedic. I do not agree with the statements above that there is any precedent to keeping such pages. Note: This page has already proliferated to Marijuana Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. If allowed to continue, Wikipedia will be flooded with such unmaintainable pages. Rossami (talk) 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.