Talk:Alberta Liberal Party candidates in the 2008 Alberta provincial election
 | This article was previously nominated for deletion. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
notability edit
If somebody is sufficiently notable for a biography (requiring non-trivial coverage in multiple sources), then they should have a biography in it's own article. If they are not, they should have no biography anywhere. However, some editors, for reasons of "compromise", have instead decided to give absolutely all candidates a biography in composite articles like this. We fill it with non-election related details. And if somebody runs in another election, we'd need to duplicate it in each "list of candidates" composite article. This artcle should have a a true list, giving only basic details, and then having prose that discusses the overall candidate pool. Per-candidate sections should not exist. Putting 100% of the information in the "per-candidate" sections, is an admission the authors think they deserve their own bio. I'm sure the fringe candidates love this approach. People looking for info on candidates with actual coverage, will find the fringe candidates here, along with unsourced trivia. --Rob (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- I concur. We should "make it so, #1." Garth of the Forest (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Footnotes screwed up edit
The footnotes/references are messed up, from the poorly thought out merges. You can't just take a an article, and blindly copy/paste into a separate section of another article. It takes a lot more thought and planning.
Has anybody read through any version of this whole article, and thought it is cohesive? --Rob (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Pictures edit
I suggest, that if we can't get pics for most candidates, we have none. In stand-alone articles, it's not noticiable, if just some candidates have pictures. But, for list articles, it treats the candidates unfairly to give some pics, and not others. Plus the quality of pics, will vary wildly.--Rob (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)