Talk:2022 Greenwich London Borough Council election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Candidates

I naively imagined that I was performing a service by trying to get all the publicly known information about candidates on the one page. It could have been deleted after the election. It's a matter of public interest when a councillor decides to retire or gets deselected and it's also useful to publish what can be gleaned from the web about new candidates. However Ralbegen seems to be more fanatical than me so I have thrown in the towel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.57.253.190 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are useful and interesting, but Wikipedia's policies and guidelines mean that the article's material should, in the most part, be driven by reliable source coverage. Putting together a section about candidate selections based on tweets amounts to original research, which there's a place for, but I'm afraid not in a Wikipedia article. Because of the sheer volume of information there could be, I would lean towards only including some limited material about selections, deselections, retirements or candidate backgrounds when there is strong reliable source coverage, like a local newspaper dedicating a story to it or coverage in a national publication. I hope that makes some sense? Ralbegen (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that if someone posts a factual tweet on a subject about which they have intimate knowledge and are unlikely to be lying, that amounts to a reliable source. But thanks anyway for taking the trouble to explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.57.253.190 (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]