Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajnal Ban (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hajnal Ban
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This was nominated and kept back in May, and I was one of the keep voters at the time. It was kept on the basis that, between her book about her cosmetic surgery, and her then-certain-of-election political candidacy, she was notable. In the meantime, she has become enmired in messy legal trouble, and is no longer a candidate. Her article is now being fought over by her supporters and opponents, and there's material that patently violates BLP being added and removed every second day. As such, I think this article really should go. Rebecca (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep & Protect - I came in the other day while doing vandal patrol and spent some time cleaning up sections. Since then it has only had one addition - I think something like pending changes or some other form of protection would be more suitable. Her book, I think, makes her notable - along with the controversy. It's worth pointing out that while user PropertySouth is clearly a Ban supporter (from his/her edits & comments) they have done a pretty good job at not bringing too much (positive) bias into the article & has been reasonable in his/her cleaning up. I know others are keeping an eye on the article so I don't think it is an issue --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 07:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * KEEP & Protect. 1) In May 2009 Hajnal Ban was not certain to be a candidate for election as the new federal seat of Wright was not created. In fact her original page just mentioned the fact that she was considering her political future. Hajnal Ban may in fact run for politics again now that her name has been cleared. 2) Hajnal Ban has continued to contribute to broader Australian political debate and has added to it, with numerous media mentions. 3) The fact she has been involved in a legal stoush (now over) is further evidence she is notable, as it has gained widespread media coverage to this day. 4) Her cosmetic surgery, continued interest in her and her book still make her notable. 5) her mere marriage to Black was widley covered by the media. 6) As a route to consensuses may I suggest that edits be blocked, as it is obvious people are trying to vandalise this entry. I ask that this debate remain focused on facts and show dignity to the person. I will ask that personal attacks be deleted.Propertysouth (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:GNG (there is plenty of reliable secondary sources) and vandalism of an article isn't a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Many of these sources aren't terribly reliable (for one, there's several press releases in there), and it's not a matter of vandalism - it's a matter of the article being a major BLP concern in a way that it wasn't before this legal mess broke. Rebecca (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BLP the AFDing it seems pre-emptive. The only BLP concerns seem to be over Ban's removal as candidate due to a controversy. The material seems to be pretty well (and fairly) dealt with in the article and there is no actual dispute over that other than some suspect edits by users to add in previously rejected text. On the other hand if consensus is that the section violates WP:BLP surely the sensible course is simply to remove it (as suggested by BLP policy) . WP:BLP says Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. - I'd suggest these issues are addressed a) by a discussion of the content, b) a rewrite of the section based on that and c) protection of the page if necessary to prevent re-addition. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * there is only one press release, from Russell Lutton which was inserted to prove that he is a pro-pokies Councillor. All other sources are news papers and various other local and national media as well as media outlets from around the world. No press releases of Ban's are included in sources. In fact sources are amoung the most comprehensive of many articles. Also quoted are various books. Legal mess is now over, so as mentioned way to address this concern would be protection.Propertysouth (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * comment I think a discussion of the content would be more appropriate. This article exists in its current form because Propertysouth essentially 'owns' it.  I can only see one change that is vandalism.  A lot of it is opinion.  Have a look at the edit history and tell me where the vandalism is.  Propertysouth has continually deleated referenced material.Space cadet 2000 (talk) 11:37, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * many edits have been made to this wiki by various contributors, not just Propertysouth. It is important we refer to WP policy in guiding this debate and as such I ask; which policy has this wiki broken so as to be a candidate for deletion? If contributors have broken the BLP then the contributors (such as the IP address associated with spacecadet) should be the ones to be deleted (or barred) Propertysouth (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * propertysouth, please point to a single edit where I have breached a policy or vandalised this pageSpace cadet 2000 (talk) 11:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * focus of debate is this wiki, not you spacecadet, nor Propertysouth. This debate is just about Hajnal Ban's wiki entry and how it relates to wiki policy. Lets focus attention on policy and rules and keep this debate simple and focused. Propertysouth (talk) 12:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * agreed, but you refered specifically to me. Any and all changes I have attempted to make to this article have been entirely referenced, with sources such as the Australian and the Courier Mail.  As it stands none of my changes are incorporated into this article because you have reverted all of them.  Please point to one that is vandalism, not sourced or a breach of policy.Space cadet 2000 (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * talk page is appropriate place to discuss edits and if they should be included, not this page. I have explained revisions and sought to seek consensus through proper outlet. I note you have never explained yourself and your edits anywhere. Happy to debate these issues in appropriate forum. Let’s debate issue to do with deletion on this page.Propertysouth (talk) 12:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep but watch closely for BLP issues. The article in its current form needs some cleanup, but I'm not sure that this warrants deletion, and I'm also concerned about this being interpreted (even though I know that it is not) as part of the worrying trend towards deleting articles with BLP problems rather than just keeping a close eye on them. Ban has received substantial coverage in the national media, satisfying WP:GNG, and she overcomes any possible WP:ONEEVENT concerns easily (book, Forde candidacy, Wright candidacy, etc.). She passes these without having to worry about "near-certain" candidacy, which is a terrible reason for keeping an article anyway. Frickeg (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Frickeg (talk) 13:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Active politicians are inherently public figures and should be beset with the lowest of all possible notability bars for WP inclusion in the name of the public good. Protect the article if you must and do fix that crappy layout — but there seems absolutely zero place for a deletion challenge here. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. The subject does not now, and never has in the past managed to satisfy WP:POLITICIAN. The interest in the subject has not been about her political views anyway, but prurient interest in her personal life especially her leg extensions. No objections to re-creation if and when she is actually elected into a position other than a Councillor for a city-fringe local government area. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Politician guidelines cited above include: "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." Sounds about right, eh? Carrite (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously purporting that Beaudesert Shire Council members are "Major local political figures"??? That clause is designed to cover local government elected officials of major cities like Brisbane (and the other capitals in Australia) not semi-rural LGAs. Ban is not a major political figure of any note at this stage. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Beaudesert Shire is not only political invlovement of Ban. Been a federal candidate twice, current Councillor in Australia's sixth larget Council (Logan City)and is often quote when ever she comments on Australia's political landscape. Is noteable. Propertysouth (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Active politician, and although not elected at the highest level clearly has large amounts of coverage and not just concerning a single event. Appears to sail past the GNG. If there's vandalism or edit warring we can semi-protect the page rather than deleting it! Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, which is our community standard for such people. Of course in some cases, the GNG might apply, but not here. The coverage relates to a string of isolated, unsuccessful candidacies and controversialtabloid events. It doesn't discuss her life and career at any holistic level and is therefore not "significant" coverage for the purposes of a proper biography. The article clearly suffers from this sourcing deficiency - it is a string of events, not a biography. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources as of now aren't perfect, but coverage seems significant enough to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline. Regards,    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN - cant put it any better than Mkativerata does above so wont try. Codf1977 (talk) 13:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but you have to put it better then that. Many actually think Ban does pass the politican wiki policy, however various points have been made showing how Ban actually breezes other wiki polices as well. Propertysouth (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, no. She unquestionably fails WP:POLITICIAN. I, along with almost everyone else !voting keep, am asserting that she passes the general notability guideline. Frickeg (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy on politican states; ’ Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.” Logan City (her current office) is a major metropolitan city, in fact Australia’s sixth largest city. Within 2 years its predicted Logan may be Australia’s fourth Largest City. A simple Google search will also show the significant press Ban achieves. Ban sails past this test of a politician of note alone. Also sails past this test; ‘Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Ban marriage and enagement alone gained widespread coverage. Whenever she blogs it is covered in the media what she is saying.Propertysouth (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - when evaluating sources it is important to assess their quality rather than weigh them. Here the sources do not cover her life or career in any depth. Pivotal for me is that she has yet to achieve anything notable. One phrase in the article, "Although she worked hard at her campaign and was credited with achieving a larger than expected swing, Ban only achieved 12.2% of the primary vote.", exemplifies the length to which the authors have gone, to attempt to make fine cloth out of off-cuts. TerriersFan (talk) 22:32, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * many achievements have been made, and as outlines, Ban has written books, been a commentator on certain issues, and is a current politician. She has had some success and some failure as a candidate. Your argument is general, and doesn't pay regard to policy. If it is your argument that her career needs to be explored in more depth than that can be done. However it is worth noting the number of sources and coverage of this person is greater hen many other wikis that have been allowed to stayPropertysouth (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Summary of my view - no one from the delete case has worked towards consensus, as required by wiki policy. Non of the contributors that have put the case for deletion have had regard to policy what-so-ever, or pointed out a failing of this wiki entry of any note. This debate now needs to be concluded and the article should be keptPropertysouth (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC).
 * Keep for now. Has two claims to notability and news coverage is continuing. I would revisit at a later time, if coverage diminishes. -- Pink Bull  08:01, 21 July 2010 (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.