=Outside input=== 
 *I've given this debate a bit of a read through, and for the most part, it seems clear that although the actual content of many of  may be important, they are presented in an extremely PoV manner that IMO smells agenda-pushing. Issues (ii) and (vii) below are prime examples of that, though the rest work as well. The key here that I think GoldDragon needs to understand (and trust me, I have experience with POV pushers) is that Wikipedia is not a place to campaign, all additions to the article need to be entirely factual and presented in a clearly neutral manner - something that  seems to have done well. GoldDragon's edits (specifically the ones identified as contentious in this discussion) should be reworked to be presented in a neutral manner, or else removed. In addition, this issue of what is notable enough for inclusion has come up often in my own disputes. The most useful tool I've come up with to deal with this is to ask myself "Will the average, a-political Torontonian find this information useful?" Things like the election sign business for example; while interesting to those who are intensely involved, if you were to ask the average person, they'd probably say something along the lines of "Who cares?" That, I find, is a good measure of notability when dealing with trivia in politician articles   

 ==