Talk:Julian Heller

Notability

There should at least be a separate article until the by-election. 64.229.200.178 (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It is standard policy that a candidate is notable in Canadian biographies on Wikipedia. So the article should stay, even after the election, whether or not he gets elected.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I quote from WP:CANSTYLE:

Wikipedia is not bound by a requirement to give equal time to political candidates, but neither is it prejudiced in favour of or against any political party. Wikipedia is, however, bound by a requirement to demonstrate the notability of article subjects through the verifiable use of reliable sources about the topic.

As a result, Wikipedia consensus has determined that candidates for political office are not inherently notable just for standing as candidates. Per WP:POLITICIAN, a candidate in a federal, provincial or municipal election is only presumed notable in one of two cases:

1. 1. the person has already held office (i.e. incumbents, people who have previously held another notable political office, or newly elected political figures on or after election night),
   2. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic (see Wikipedia:Notability for what this entails). Note that this coverage must actually be about the person themselves — coverage that merely mentions the candidate in passing, such as the table of election results, is not sufficient to justify an independent article.

If a political candidate does not meet either of these requirements, they may be mentioned in a candidates list such as Green Party candidates, 2008 Canadian federal election, but are not inherently entitled to their own separate articles. Note that under Wikipedia's copyright policies, it is not acceptable to cut and paste a politician's campaign literature directly from their website. Articles on Wikipedia must be original content, written in a neutral point of view and properly referenced to reliable media sources independent of the subject.

In other words, there is no requirement that we have a separate article until the by-election, nor is it standard policy that a candidate is notable in Canadian biographies on Wikipedia.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Taking a look at the article, there isn't much that makes this individual notable as per WP:BIO. The mere fact that he is a candidate is insufficient. I would merge with New Democratic Party candidates, 2007 Ontario provincial election under the by-elections heading.--Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going by what's practised in the real world of Wikipedia. Canadian administrators have ruled on other similar Canadian articles, that politicians running federally or provincially are notable, which means there is a historical track record of keeping these articles. Besides, the second paragraph means that he is notable, because he is getting press for the by-election, as is the by-election.Abebenjoe (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Skeezix1000 is right, simply running for office is not a criteria for inclusion, holding the office is. Standard practice is to merge the article as noted above. And typically we do not have articles on every person who ran for the office of MP or MPP, for example see Mississauga South#Federal election results for candidates who do not have articles, including those who ran for major parties. The sources may bring it up to the general notability guidelines, but as for now he is falling into WP:BLP1E territory.--kelapstick (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, while there are certainly cases where an unsuccessful electoral candidate has been deemed notable enough for Wikipedia, just being a candidate has very little to do with it — in almost every such case, the person was already notable for other things besides being a candidate. In a very few isolated cases, their candidacy itself does make them sufficiently notable, most commonly because they said or did something controversial and got national or international press attention out of it. But generally, the standard that a non-elected political candidate has to meet is that they'd be notable enough for an article even if they weren't a candidate.

I can't claim to know a whole lot about him, so it is certainly possible that Julian Heller might meet that standard — but as currently written, this article doesn't demonstrate that. It can be kept if there's a reasonable prospect of expansion, but a merger would be more appropriate if there isn't. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. The sources for this article are only mentions in passing; not significant enough to pass WP:N nor enough for a WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, biography of a living person. I recommend a merge to another suitable article until there are sufficient Reliable sources to expand this to an independent article. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)