Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hollie Hughes (politician)


 * 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. Trending towards keep. This is another of the several recent AfDs in which we disagree about whether extensive election-related media coverage makes a candidate notable.  Sandstein  16:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Hollie Hughes (politician)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Don't think this meets WP:POLITICIAN. She is notable only for a single event, that she was nominated by the National Party for the Senate but was ruled ineligible. The various mentions by local papers looking for a local angle don't meet WP:GNG. Boneymau (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Boneymau (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis, and redirect - likely search term. Not notable in her own right.  Single event - trim the merge to focus on that.  But should have a paragraph or two in 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * On review this might be a weak keep, but there would need to be much better balance in the article. Currently over 50% of the article is about the one event, ie, the subject's involvement in the 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis.  More needs to be written about the subject's other activities, which if cannot be done brings us back to single event and a merge.  Aoziwe (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable. As the entry linked above reminds us, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article" The sources include the national broadcaster, the tagline in the story by the ABC political correspondent asks "". Not a local or state senate, the entire nation's. So rather than being 'only known for one event', she was noted for being a "powerbroker" before her second run at the senate,   — cygnis insignis 15:17, 22 October 2018 (UTC)<
 * Addendum: In reply to comments that a 'notability freebie'[?] stems from a single event, the ABC story precedes that, and notes she held high profile political positions and is retroactively described as a "power-broker" (as often happens, it is not necessary that be reported at time). Characterising Hughes as just another candidate who didn't get elected ignores the detail given in sources, perhaps blinded by the event named for her (a keyword in the numerous mentions at the parliamentary website, for example) in an extended episode in Australian political history. this wasn't column space and airtime given to candidates own statements. The very thing that disqualified her is also notable, the position she resigned from to run, which in turn brought light to a long and active career in politics and the ABC journo determined was in the public interest. Again, N was already established before the determination, the fact that those events are also notable, or "bloody much more" so, does not somehow diminish her own notability. — cygnis insignis 13:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Many non-notable people hold state-level influence in political parties, and being on a party state executive or being a party state country vice-president is not even close to a claim to notability - almost all holders of those officers would be speedy deletion candidates. Members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal would also be unless they could somehow otherwise pass WP:GNG. These are not significant positions for Wikipedia purposes. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by users on talk pages, except where there is OR and SYN, it is determined by RS outside, in RL. The 'non-notable people' who have held similar positions are just that, not noted, and establishing that would be counter to policy. Wikipedia's purpose is not to decide who is notable independently of reliable sources, a wrong-headed or inverted approach from too much wikipedia, and people need to get over themselves if they have elected themselves to that role. cygnis insignis 04:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's why we have the guideline of WP:NPOL, which is interesting and technical in this case. Probably should only look at WP:GNG, which runs into WP:BLP1E issues as noted. SportingFlyer  talk  04:44, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." My point is eluding you, the contest is between anons saying 'nahnah, she lost and is therefore a nobody loser' and bluffly invoking policy that blatantly contradicts them versus journalists' in RS, that is no contest except when people fancy adopting a bias pov in a debate. Which 'technical' point in that guideline is also eluding you? cygnis insignis 05:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete. Every candidate in every election always receives campaign coverage, so the existence of that coverage is not an automatic GNG pass that hands a candidate a free exemption from having to pass NPOL by winning the election — campaign coverage only turns into a GNG pass for a non-winning candidate on the extremely rare occasion that the candidate has received so bloody much more coverage, compared to what every other candidate also gets, that she has a serious claim to being special. But that's not what the depth and volume of sourcing here are showing at all — they're just showing the normal and routine coverage that every candidate can simply expect, not a strong case for enduring "people will still be looking for this article ten years from now" specialitude. And no, "for about a decade Ms Hughes has served on the Liberal Party state executive, and is listed on their website as the country vice-president" isn't a notability freebie either — the way to make that an article-clinching notability claim is to reference it to media coverage she was already receiving in that role before she was a candidate for anything, not mere mentions of it as career background in the campaign coverage, but there are no sources being shown here that meet the correct standard on that count either. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notable.I may be mistaken, but I think that the notability of the subject is found in her appearance before the High Court, as a part of the parliamentary eligibility crisis in 2017. Her ineligibility was ruled to be consequent to her "holding of an office of profit under the crown" - a ruling which hasonly been found a couple of times in Australia's history. She has also held a position on the NSW State executive as vice president, and founded a considerably sized charity in New South Wales. Although perhaps her characterisation in this article as a politician is wrong, her notability stems from the legal issues surrounding her case, as well as the political context which set the platform for it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jshi3755 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the basic points you make are correct. However, the court ruling remains for the subject a single event and hence not automatically notable.  It should be properly recorded in 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis where the notability of the court's ruling is certainly demonstrated, but the individuals concerned do not inherit notability from that.  Aoziwe (talk) 11:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I suspect nominator made a fairly common mistake nominators make at AFD. When an article has a disambiguator, like the disambiguator "(politician)" for this article, one can't rely on the suggested web searches offered when the AFD is instantiated.  When one strips the disambiguator one sees many apparently good web hits.  Nominator, would you consider withdrawing this AFD.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have considered, and I'll let it run. Not certain yet it isn't single event-related. Boneymau (talk) 00:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The very significant majority of these seem to be related to the senate eligibility matter, single event, and many of the remainder seem to be mentions with the main topic being about someone else? Aoziwe (talk) 11:38, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Better than my crude search attempt, smothered with the court decision, but with links like 'Massive stoush' over plan to get more Liberal women into parliament this will become a pile-on. Withdrawing the nom and !vote is good advice. — cygnis insignis 18:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete and redirect: clear WP:BLP1E fail. I'm happy with a redirect to the parliamentary eligibility article, where we can include her basic information. SportingFlyer  talk  12:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 23:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC) (Comment) It seems as though her notability stems from not actually becoming a politician.Trillfendi (talk) 23:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the precedent of Wayne Dropulich which is substantially similar. Hughes was indeed elected on a countback, despite later being found ineligible. Wikipedia policy is for elected persons to have articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * By which I mean she passes WP:POLITICIAN for election to national office. Heather Hill is also an example of an elected senator voided. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Dropulich was elected though, Hughes was nominated by a party. SportingFlyer  talk  09:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hughes was elected following a recount (usually called countback) of ballots after Fiona Nash was found ineligible. Then she was also found ineligible herself. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:07, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, you're right. It's hugely confusing, though, because the high court immediately looked to see if she was ineligible, and she was "elected" way after the fact after being sixth on the Senate ticket, an unwinnable spot. Hill at least was in parliament and then kicked out. If you look at this on WP:GNG grounds, I think it's still a WP:BLP1E fail, as there are a couple other sources which are all fairly routine election coverage. SportingFlyer  talk  10:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, not right at all. Dropulich (who I argued strongly to keep) was formally declared elected to the Senate, which Hughes never was. The result of the initial countback was never formally declared and was rejected by the High Court which then ordered another countback excluding Hughes, so unlike Dropulich (and Heather Hill, who was also never in Parliament by the way), she does not meet the "elected" criterion of WP:POLITICIAN. The countbacks are not actually elections and cannot be declared by the AEC in normal fashion as they are special counts ordered by the High Court. The article is actively wrong about this too - it talks a lot about Hughes being "nominated" for the Senate by the Liberal Party in 2017, which is utter nonsense. Frickeg (talk) 11:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hence my confusion - I read the Wikipedia article and assumed it was a casual vacancy. It's been awhile since this happened, even though it was recent! SportingFlyer  talk  11:23, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hughes is not the same as Hill and Dropulich, but they are all different from each other. Dropulich's election victory was voided, while Hill's eligibility was voided. The case with Hollie Hughes is surely substantially similar to the cases of Dropulich and Hill, and I don't think they have to be identical to those previous cases to be a sufficient reason to keep. It's within the same spirit that Dropulich and Hill were kept that Hughes should be kept, and Hughes has far more biographical information available than both of those. She was essentially elected but never confirmed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete/redirect. Hughes is a non-notable party figure and serial candidate for unwinnable seats. We have a longstanding consensus that losing candidates aren't notable and becoming a footnote in constitutional law associated with being a losing candidate doesn't end-run WP:BLP1E. I also note that Geo Swan's keep vote doesn't actually explain any justification at all beyond an attack on the nominator. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 08:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * An 'attack on the nominator' by the user, nice try mate. Not getting up does not automatically disqualify persons whose notability is established by other sources, how does the source I found via Swan's search fail to provide an RS that confer that? Powerbroker! — cygnis insignis 12:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many, many non-notable "powerbrokers" in state politics. I can think of maybe one or two unelected figures who are actually notable. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 21:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a list? Michael Kroger and Marcus Bastiaan come to mind. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

--Scott Davis Talk 02:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. No, this is a clear unsuccessful-candidate WP:BLP1E situation. More than likely she'll get a seat at some point, but until she does, absolutely no indication of notability. Frickeg (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * weak keep. There seem to be a good range of reliable sources, but "failed candidate" seems to be the general theme, although the sources provide information about her well beyond that aspect of her life. That is generally agreed means she fails WP:POLITICIAN. The question is whether she scrapes over the bar for WP:GNG and WP:BLP1E as the "one event" spanned over a year. There is too much information in this article to make it sensible to try to merge it into the crisis or constitution articles. The article is currently flagged as an orphan, but if it is kept, there should be links from
 * 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis
 * Section 44 of the Constitution of Australia
 * Members of the Australian Senate, 2016–2019
 * Candidates of the Australian federal election, 2016
 * Keep - Locus of newsworthy-to-the-point-of-being-historically-notable legal wrangling over eligibility. Copious coverage to allow writing of a fact-based article; in fact, this is a pretty good one. Carrite (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't have to meet WP:POLITICIAN if otherwise meets WP:NOTABLE. Donama (talk) 23:43, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep has the WP:SIGCOV to keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2018 (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.