Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Although there were some deletes, the general consensus was to keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sarah Hanson-Young

Sarah Hanson-Young (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Procedural renomination, following a relisting from a previous Deletion review debate. Titoxd(?!?) 05:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Note this was relisted due to new information unearthed during review. ~ trialsanderrors 05:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a novel idea. How about we contribute to articles rather than go around chasing articles to delete? I know that idea is way out of left field... Timeshift 06:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, when a deletion review consensus results in a decision to relist an AFD, that is not "chasing articles to delete". In fact, it is bringing an article back for one more chance to prove itself.--Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Canley 10:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Subject of multiple independent reliable sources, as per WP:NOTABILITY. --Canley 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep There are too many Green Party Wikipedians to ever allow this article or ones like it to be deleted. So let's leave it aliveand concentrate on improving other articles. Pardon the cynicism, but we had this debate last time and also with similar Green candidates (for example Jamie Parker or John Kaye), and there's no point rehashing it. Jeendan 10:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Given the comments of cynicism above, I must state that I prefer to keep an article rather than delete it, but non-successfull candidates are not notable, unless other factors are raised and I do not see that here. --Bduke 11:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you cite the section of the notability guidelines which supports your assertion that losing candidates aren't notable? There is a specific section that says that notability is not the subjective opinion of editors. Please evaluate based on the guidelines. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO. John Vandenberg 13:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable enough figure already, the senate pre-selection is simply the icing on the cake. Plus she's married to the eminent Zane Young, a local City of Mitcham councillor (and the first Greens councillor in SA). michael talk 13:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Meets the notability guidelines with sufficient verifiable references. Not all references are strong, but some of these merely add background info. The notability guidelines are more than acheived by at least two articles of which she is the main subject, and these sources are independent of her control. --Kevin Murray 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notable. TonyTheTiger 21:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Run of the mill candidates are not notable but this candidate has generated a reasonable amount of interest as shown by the articles from national media attached. As well, I would say that she has a reasonable chance of being elected. Capitalistroadster 01:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite simple, really. Wikipedia:Notability: "a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself." That's all that we care about. Electability, candidacy, previous success: these are all red herrings. WP:N#The primary notability criterion is more than satisfied. — coelacan talk — 01:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment There are clearly notable people, clearly non-notable people, and then there are those in between. With political candidates of marginal significance, there's a trend towards supporters (or possible detractors) of that candidate writing articles for them. Isn't this a form of systematic bias? Another problem is that the articles often lack citations of non-vanity reliable sources. Any flaws in unreliable sources (or people working from memory) are likely to affect the article. Currently, Hanson's article does not cite reliable sources (it merely lists mentions in the media), and Rishworth only cites one reliable source. In future, if everybody just cited reliable sources for everything they wrote, it won't end up in tears. Andjam 01:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The reliable sources to cite are right there in the article. The fact that they haven't yet been woven into the text of the article is immaterial here. We are merely concerned with notability here. The sources can be woven in as citations at any time. If you're bothered about this, gofixit. — coelacan talk — 01:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
What you've said is not entirely true. For example, before making the comment, I checked if any of the sources mentioned Goongerah, and none of them did. Thanks, Andjam 01:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
If that bothers you, the way to gofixit would be to comment out the Goongerah bit, then. — coelacan talk — 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, gaining a minor-party nomination twice doesn't make you notable, especially if you fail the first time. She's far from a certainty to get elected, and some routine news reports hardly make me think she's a more notable than any other Senate candidate with some party backing. Lankiveil 02:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:N#Notability is not subjective. Can you explain which part of the WP:N#The primary notability criterion is lacking here? — coelacan talk — 04:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • My local primary school has an article in the local paper every week, summarising the various goings-on. This does not make that school notable. Likewise, anyone standing for a candidacy in a state election is probably going to have a couple of cursory, local news items produced about them, yet unless the person is somehow otherwise notable, this doesn't set them apart from the pack. If we include this individual, then we might as well create an article on every Green, Democrat, Family First and One Nation candidate out there ever, because I'm sure they've all received at least some coverage. Lankiveil 06:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC).
  • Keep. Subject of lots of independent coverage in reliable sources, which makes her notable, even if some other unsuccessful electoral candidates are not. --Eastmain 03:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:If she's the lead candidate then how come the article is so poor to end up at AfD? What does it say for a party that the lead candidate has had that little notable coverage that the problem isn't working out what to include (per Pauline Hanson) but finding reliable sources to quote? Maybe if she wins something she will become notable. I'm sure the worst result here will be no consensus but the article is in a dreadful state and it's no wonder it was nominated.Garrie 06:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The article was deleted since October, until yesterday, so no one could work on it. — coelacan talk — 07:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would normally lean towards delete, but for the last comment by Coelacan re its relatively short duration in this window, and broadly agree with Garrie. That being said, this person does not appear to be notable, just as I would have argued Rachel Siewert was not notable until her election to the Senate position for WA. Opinions as to electability (anyone read Family First's voting stats in that state?) are really irrelevant here. Orderinchaos78 13:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. If no-hopers like Ross Daniels and Troy Williams are worthy of wiki pages, then surely Hanson-Young, who stands a much greater chance of winning election, is as well. Dlw22 13:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • They aren't worthy of wiki pages, they merely have them. I've proposed deletion of the two in respones to your comment. Andjam 16:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Point well made by Dlw22, this is what I was getting at in the deletion review. As to the comments made by Garrie about the article being so short, I'm with coelacan. Maybe we could actually improve it, rather than being so quick to delete. I agree with Andjam's point about non-verifiable information, although it's a shame we couldn't find any sources for that little-known extra information. PabloZ 14:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Note PabloZ is the person who created the article. Andjam 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
      • and that's another reason why I want to keep it. --PabloZ 21:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just don't see her as famous enough to merit an entry. --Roisterer 07:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Plenty of other less notable candidates have articles, and I see no sense in deleting the article only to have to recreate it later. Rebecca 07:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, notability is not about fame, nor whether one wins or loses an election. Plenty of sources are cited for a decent article to be possible, and that's what WP:N is intended to assure. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. She is notable but the article should be cleaned up. Makgraf 07:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO full stop. I started to clean up the article, but online references are difficult to find. Information given can be confirmed in snippets only. Nonetheless, there is now one reference (two, if the Amnesty International site that confirms her employment is taken into consideration) and an expanded article. At some point, the primary editor has blanked out the beginning of a much better article including information about why the Australia Day Award was bestowed, presumably because he or she could not cite online references (See the page editor for this text). My feeling is this article can be improved. At worst, it could be merged with Greens South Australia --Greatwalk 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This article is as notable as those for similar Green Party activists Jenny Leong, David Risstrom, John Kaye and Jamie Parker. I believe all of them fail WP:CRYSTAL because they rely on the outcome of a future event to secure their claim to notability. At the same time, all of them have enough genuine supporters to prevent consensus on AfD.
Assuming good faith from all sides, this suggests that the notability guidelines on candidates (as opposed to elected officials) needs amending to allow inclusion of pages for major figures in minor parties, regardless of whether they have held office. It could be argued that these figures are activists who succeed in delivering social change and have a far greater impact than major party backbenchers who win office and are never heard from again.
Even this doesn't justify Jamie Parker who is not even a candidate. But let's leave that aside. We'll never get consensus on deleting these articles. The extensive debate would be better directed at considering the notability guidelines instead of arguing 'angels on the head of a pin' things like whether we can find a source for Ms Hanson-Young's Amnesty International job. Jeendan 01:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Jamie Parker doesn't meet WP:N because independent sources are missing at present. But, as you say, let's leave that aside. All the other articles you menion are about Green candidates, that list sufficient, independent works that are reliable and can act as the basis for an encyclopedic article. Of course WP:CRYSTAL does not establish notability, but then none of these articles, S H-Y included, contain unverifiable speculation about the outcome of the election. I'm not sure why you mention WP:CRYSTAL in this context. --Greatwalk 01:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • The subjects of these articles would easily be considered notable if they were elected. They haven't been and we are speculating that they might be to justify the articles. If Ms Hanson-Young was not a Senate candidate with a chance of election, there would be absolutely nothing in her article to indicate notability. So - she is potentially notable because a future event might make her notable. That's what I mean by WP:CRYSTAL. Jeendan 02:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note I am not arguing to delete the article. I don't think it meets the notability guidelines, but there are plenty of people who disagree, and have successfully disagreed on similar AfD's for other minor party candidates. Wikipedia is the sum of its editors - if there is a continued and vehement consensus to retain articles that fail guidelines, perhaps the guidelines need review.
P.S. Jamie Parker does not meet the guidelines because he has never done anything notable and he is not a candidate for anything notable. It's not to do with the sources. Jeendan 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
P.P.S. For an extreme example, look at Helen Robinson, whose only claim to fame is being a veterinarian and getting 6% in an election. The sources are fine - a source for the profession is unnecessary and the election result is sourced to the VEC. Despite that, it fails WP:N because Ms Robinson's prfession and political history have had no impact that would justify a page. Despite that, the article would survive any number of AfD's because certain minor party candidates have a great deal of good faith support in Wikipedia. So perhaps WP:N needs changing to better reflect what the Wikipedia community thinks is notable. Jeendan 05:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
A person's impact has nothing to do with whether (s)he is notable. A subject's nontrivial secondary source coverage determines whether or not it is a notable and appropriate encyclopedia subject. In this case, the person has been covered nontrivially in multiple reliable sources. That's all. If other candidates have received a ton of source coverage but had little "impact", they're notable. If yet others had a lot of "impact" but received only trivial coverage, they're not. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 06:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, we disagree - a person's impact on politics, culture, history, religion, academia, medicine, whatever, is what I would measure notability by, not the number of newspaper mentions we can find on Google. Genuine "impact" will inevitably generate coverage, which will allow the article to be sourced. But not every newspaper mention is notable - just because we can source something doesn't qualify it for an article.
I can provide literally thousands of source materials for ship movements at Port Botany, but I don't think we need a Wikipedia page on it. We're struggling to find more than ten mentions of Ms Hanson-Young, yet it is strongly argued that she deserves a page. Jeendan 06:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Keep per Greatwalk, meets WP:BIO. Candidate for major party in national election. --Oakshade 05:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

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.