Result: Robert Sarvis should be included in the infobox.

Two editors felt that Sarvis should be excluded from the infobox and five felt that he should be included. One editor appeared to be neutral/leaning exclude. Since there doesn't appear to be any clear dividing line between where a candidate should be included in an infobox and where they shouldn't (given that not all elections are alike, perhaps it is right that there should be no clear dividing line), I don't see what else can be done here except to go with the majority.

It was claimed during the discussion that there is an existing consensus that candidates must get 5% or more in at least two opinion polls to qualify for the infobox, but I have not been able to find any evidence of this. If evidence is presented after the close, then I may be willing to take it into account.

Should Robert Sarvis be included in the infobox?

• No. The overwhelming majority of sources about the race talk in depth about it being between Warner and Gillespie (as the presumptive Republican nominee up to this point). When sources do mention Sarvis, it is usually in passing. The rationale to include Sarvis in the infobox of Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 was that he was recognized by sources as being a significant player in the race. That's not the case here. Instaurare ( talk) 00:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Is Sarvis on the ballot? If Sarvis is on the ballot, then Sarvis should be listed. All candidates on the ballot should be listed. These infoboxes can list up to 6-8 candidates comfortably. Int21h ( talk) 12:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Ballot access doesn't confer notability or viability and as such isn't a criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Tiller54 ( talk) 21:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The deadline for signatures to be submitted for ballot access is June 10, so we should find out in the next couple weeks if he is. Instaurare ( talk) 21:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Sarvis qualified for the ballot. ^[1] Given Warner's huge margin in the last election, and the weak showings by Sarvis in his previous elections, it's very unlikely that his presence on the ballot will have any impact on the outcome of this election. I'm comfortable with his removal from the infobox. Activist ( talk) 12:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Yes As per Int21h, if he's on the ballot, he should be in the infobox. Number 5 7 17:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• No. Being on the ballot doesn't confer notability or viability and by convention (and lengthy discussion), the criteria for inclusion for 3rd party candidates in the infobox is 5% or more in more than one poll. Sarvis has polled at 5% in a single poll from over 3 months ago, thus he has not met the criteria. If another poll comes out with him at 5% or more, then yes. But now? No. Tiller54 ( talk) 21:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC) reply
• Yes. The Libertarian Party is a persistent presence in American elections. Wikipedia's purpose is to report, not take sides, and leaving him out of the info box could be construed as breaching that principle. Tom Reedy ( talk) 13:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• Yes - The purpose of the infobox is to give a quick overview of the main points in the article. Sarvis is mentioned many times in the article and his name appears in the headline of four of the sources. He has a significant role in the election and he should be cited in the infobox.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 14:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC) reply
• What Tom Reedy said – I left more extensive comments at WT:E&R. If you haven't read it or don't care to read it, editors have been complaining as of late about election articles being used as a dumping ground for polling data. I ask if the tone of these same articles is weighted too heavily towards pollster (as well as corporate media) POV, even when the end result means sacrificing factual accuracy. I read the article and a sample of sources, but none of the polling data. Since it's clear that Sarvis has been excluded from both media coverage and debates, is Tiller54's contention of "Sarvis has polled at 5% (actually 6%) in a single poll from over 3 months ago" due to his being excluded from polls, too? Speaking of Tiller54, perhaps it's necessary for you to cough up some links to this discussion/consensus regarding polling numbers. The only discussion/consensus I've ever seen regards a candidate/nominee receiving 5% or more of the vote once the election has concluded. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC) reply