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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Sandor[edit]

Unelected candidate for Toronto City Council; Wikipedia precedent has already established that the municipal level of government is not a field of endeavour in which a person can be considered notable for merely standing as a candidate. Article was previously deleted in 2005 (see first AFD) and subsequently recreated after he declared his candidacy. I don't consider it a G4 since the political candidacy, while not inherently notable per WP precedent, is at the very least a different claim of notability from the earlier article. Delete. Bearcat 05:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is basically campaign advertising.Glendoremus 06:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deet 10:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Glendoremus. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 11:12, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Computerjoe's talk 18:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP:BIO or proposed WP:C&E. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C&E doesn't seem to address municipal politicians very well (or even at all, actually). I've offered a summary on the talk page of where the precedents for municipal politicians and candidates have generally gone, as a start toward potentially adding such a section to the policy proposal itself. Bearcat 22:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Esteban F. ^(con.) 00:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not that I agree with Sandor's political views, but he is notable for things other than his municipal candidacy. In particular his association with a group that advocates for something called "Brigadier's Law" which is an amendment to the criminal code that would make it a crime to harm an animal being used for the purposes of law enforcement. Brigadier was the name of a horse ridden by a mounted policemen that was hit by a driver (allegedly on purpose). Brigadier was so seriously injured that he had to be put down at the scene. The driver was charged with reckless driving, but there was no additional charge that could be levied against the driver for what he did to the horse. "Brigadier's Law" would be a remedy for this to allow an additional charge, be it for police horses or dogs. I think that Sandor deserves to be recognized for this. Atrian 04:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Bearcat, article reads like an election brochure. -- Chabuk 19:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Madchen Hoch 02:00, 17 October 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.