Talk:David Risstrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	David Risstrom is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

"Risstrom is believed to be planning to contest preselection for the 2007 federal election for the Greens." Source? Speculation - no source, so removed. Peter Campbell 12:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Removed the candidate for deletion message, the article is no longer a candidate for deletion. --Kieran Bennett 15:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

The main claim to notability in the current article is that he failed to win a seat when some wikipedians thought he "ought to" have won the seat. Can people separate their feelings about the preference deals from assessing his notability? Andjam 11:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Andjam, he is notable because of the contraversial circumstances in which he lost the seat. --Kieran Bennett 07:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is demonstrated via reliable third party sources. Please see WP:BIO for more info on making the article meet the notability requirements. Aboutmovies 08:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Notability is about whether reasonable sources can be found. From the above, it is painfully obvious that is the case here. If you can't be bothered doing even basic research before threatening with deletion on sourcing grounds, then you're doing a really lazy job of editing. Rebecca 13:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I question whether he is notable, and also the revert-editors fixation with the preference flows. I find the phrase "would have been elected but for (preference flows)" to be totally POV. Any candidate below 1 quota "would have been elected but for (preference flows)". This makes it sound like it was rightfully a Greens seat cruelly snatched by Family First, which is clearly a subjective opinion. Anyway, I'm done trying to improve this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.25 (talk) 04:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)