- 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 was delete. The only keep vote seems to be based on the false presumption that the article about Soknacki himself is to be deleted.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- David Soknacki mayoral campaign, 2014 ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Content fork for minor mayoral candidate who withdrew six weeks before the election after polling in single digits. Downwoody ( talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - unnecessary content fork. Maybe merge a few lines back into David Soknacki but there is no need to cover the campaign of a minor candidate in a mayoral race in this much detail. St★lwart 111 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, I'm wondering if
David Soknacki is notable at all. There's only (very) local coverage and the only national-level coverage simple name-checks him in a story about other people. There's no significant coverage outside of his immediate geographic area.
St★lwart
111 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- As I mentioned when you raised the same concern on the similar article about Karen Stintz's withdrawn campaign, Toronto is in the narrow range of internationally famous metropolitan million-plus megacities for which serving on the city council is taken as an automatic WP:NPOL pass. For most cities, it's true that we don't accept city councillors as inherently notable — but for cities in the Toronto- Los Angeles- New York City- London bracket, we do. So while his article does need improvement, it does meet our inclusion standards — though as with Stintz that doesn't mean his campaign needs to be covered in a spinoff from his BLP. Bearcat ( talk) 04:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- In fact, I'm wondering if
David Soknacki is notable at all. There's only (very) local coverage and the only national-level coverage simple name-checks him in a story about other people. There's no significant coverage outside of his immediate geographic area.
St★lwart
111 02:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete - A minor mayoral candidate for a minor election. Also, he just withdrew from the race, so the campaign was not a very notable one. Aerospeed ( Talk) 02:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Ascii002 Talk Contribs GuestBook 15:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- A separate spinoff article about an individual candidate's campaign in a municipal election is not the kind of thing we need on Wikipedia — while we've allowed this type of thing for presidential campaigns in the United States, I don't know of any precedent to extend that to municipal offices in any country. Bill de Blasio doesn't have one of these, Rahm Emanuel doesn't have one of these, Eric Garcetti doesn't have one of these, Boris Johnson doesn't have one of these — why would Toronto warrant separate articles about each individual mayoral candidate's individual campaign if New York City and Chicago and Los Angeles and London don't? Any content that's worth keeping should be merged directly into David Soknacki, which is in need of improvement anyway, but this article should be deleted. And that still goes for Olivia Chow mayoral campaign, 2014, Rob Ford mayoral campaign, 2014 and John Tory mayoral campaign, 2014, too — the fact that their campaigns are still active as of today still doesn't justify covering the campaign in a separate content fork. Bearcat ( talk) 04:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Individual mayoral campaigns do not get their own articles. This is controlled by NP:NPOL.-- danntm T C 05:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per the arguments given above and similarly for Karen Stintz. Soknacki's campaign achieved more notability than most of the 67 candidates still running, indicated through his inclusion in the major debates and coverage in major newspapers, however the campaign seemed to fail to score points with voters. His candidacy should be mentioned somehow within the Toronto mayoral election, 2014 article, as he was considered a possible contender by the media and subsequent to his dropping out there have been several writeups on the effect his campaign is expected to have on the outcome of the election. But the campaign is really only notable in the context of the election, and shouldn't have its own page. None of the campaigns really should have separate articles, but that's not the question here. Ivanvector ( talk) 15:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
- Keep – Ivanvector stated directly above me "Soknacki's campaign achieved more notability than most of the 67 candidates still running." It meets WP:GNG and makes him a notable candidate. Kingjeff ( talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nobody's suggesting that we delete the main article about Soknacki himself. But his campaign does not need a separate article from the one on him as an individual — no mayoral candidate in any city on earth, even larger ones than Toronto, has ever qualified for this treatment before, and Toronto's current election is not the place to create a new precedent for this approach. By all means, the relevant content can be added to David Soknacki and/or Toronto mayoral election, 2014 — but we don't need an BLP about him, an overview about the mayoral election as a whole and a third layer of spinoff articles about each individual candidate's individual campaign. Bearcat ( talk) 06:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Unnecessary level of detail for a municipal election campaign. Should be briefly covered in the election article in a "Campaign" section (which is currently missing). Number 5 7 14:47, 16 September 2014 (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.