Talk:Karl Bélanger

This article was nominated for deletion on July 30, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Canada: Quebec / Politics Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Political parties and politicians in Canada.

Protected

Please discuss the issue here. Thanks. --- RockMFR 04:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I think the article should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election, and redirected. GreenJoe 04:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with GreenJoe that this subject fails WP:N - I haven't seen any evidence that he has been the subject of (as opposed to merely mentioned in) any more substantial third party coverage than any other defeated House of Commons candidate. Of course, I also think WP:N should be interpreted more generously where defeated candidates are concerned. In summary, I agree that previously-established consensuses indicate that this article should be merged, but I would have been on the losing side of those consensuses. In the interests of consistency, merge. In the interests of what I personally think make a better encyclopedia, keep. Sarcasticidealist 04:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with them:

Weak Keep While most of his media mentions I saw are simply being quoted, I could argue that his job as a "front man" for a major party leader is relatively significant. The person responsible for spinning the party message before the public is in papers and on TV a fair amount. Correct me if I am wrong.Montco 00:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable: press secretary for a national party. Bearian 16:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

so Keep 24.201.157.82 02:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — 24.201.157.82 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep 74.56.192.225 13:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC) — 74.56.192.225 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep New here but that's what I think. 74.15.177.45 18:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's accurate to say that the discussion result was clearly keep, as was asserted in the edit summary restoring the article. There were only three people supporting keep directly on the talk page (and all of those were anonymous IPs that had made relatively few contributions outside of this page). Against these, there were two merge votes, both from editors who I don't think can be accused of single purpose accounts. That looks to me like no consensus, with the next most likely conclusion being merge. Is it time for an RFC on this subject? Sarcasticidealist 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge RFC

There is disagreement as to whether this person meets the threshold required under WP:BIO, or whether he should be merged into New Democratic Party candidates, 1993 Canadian federal election. An WP:AFD on this article came up Keep, with no prejudice against merger. Sarcasticidealist 00:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I merged it because I had considered the move discussion above to be no consensus. I don't consider the opinions of anonymous IP's. The guy really isn't notable. That would be like having an article on Elizabeth May's Administrative Assistant. GreenJoe 00:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]