Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Clare


 * 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 wasKeep Non-admin closure. Well referenced and in no doubt that he will be increasingly notable in coming years. :: maelgwn - talk 13:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Jason Clare

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The subject is a non-notable electoral candidate. Unless actually elected, merely being a candidate for office does not confer sufficient notability to meet WP:BIO. No independent sources asserting notability have been provided and the article contains original research about the subject's electoral chances. A contested PROD, reasons for contesting are given on the article's talk page. Mattinbgn\talk 10:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

*Delete as per Twenty Years and nom. I can't accept the reasoning that a future political event, no matter how "certain", will confer retroactive notability. The history of politics is full of "certainties" that didn't happen. Accounting4Taste 19:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable politician. Keb25 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete with the option of re-creating if he gets elected. Unless elected, he fails all notability. Twenty Years 13:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I accept that this article has been significantly improved with references since I first viewed it, with the addition of numerous citations that appear to confer more notability than I had previously seen. I also ruefully admit that I was not born Australian and thus must agree that I don't have the same perspective on Australian news.  I think I've learned that every once in a while, a political candidate is notable, and I accept that that is the case here. Accounting4Taste 03:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the endorsed candidate for a safe seat is notable. The article may need references but that is  a different question.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * References now added. Note to oust the sitting member in a safe seat is extraordinary - this is not a non-notable politician.--Golden Wattle  talk 00:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Except of course, safe seats are lost from time to time; in fact some polling suggests that Division of Grey - held by a 13.9% margin - will change hands at the next election.. While I accept that this is very unlikely to happen in Blaxland, as Accounting4Taste suggests strange things can happen at elections.  At present, Mr Clare is a mere candidate and one hundred and one things can happen between now and the election.  Candidates for election do not meet WP:BIO and notability has not been established for anything other than his candidacy. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While candidates for election do not generally meet WP:Bio - my argument is that this is no mere ordinary candidate: he has ousted the sitting member and the preferred alternative candidate to successfully gain preselection to one of Australia's safest Labor seats - a seat that appearently has just become safer still after a recent redistribution.  If there was an upset that indeed would make him even more notable - the man who lost Blaxland for the ALP - can you imagine it!  There are a few seats that are notable to many people in the population - Blaxland because it was held by Keating, Bennelong because it is held by Howard - Kooyong remembered for the colt (Peacock) and perhaps Menzies also :-).  These seats have a mystique about them and their candidates are not ordinary.  Per WP:Bio I think Clare qualifies as Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage - it is by no means overwhelming but it is not merely of local quality being tied up with ALP preselection issues (national exec overriding branch preferences). --Golden Wattle  talk 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Golden Wattle. Preselection controversy can create notability (see for example Michael Towke), and the article has been nicely sourced. Recurring dreams 02:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:NOT "Wikipedia properly considers the long-term historical notability of persons and events, keeping in mind the harm our work might cause. The fact that someone or something has been in the news for a brief period of time does not automatically justify an encyclopedia article ... in many cases this will mean not having a biography about someone who is not an encyclopedic subject, despite having made a brief appearance in the news. Timely news articles, however, are welcome on our sister project Wikinews." (WP:BLP says the same: The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry.) I am indebted to User:FT2 and have quoted him/her here. Accounting4Taste 02:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue has been in the news since May - relatively low profile and this is not actually trying to be a news article. It is an article about someone who will almost certainly be the next member for a high profile seat.  User:Accounting4Taste is not Australian I am not sure whether the subtleties differentiating one candidate of a seat from another candidate for a high profile seat are apparent.  I am not sure how to make them more apparent other than to say the article is referenced from a number of different national news sources which cover a number of months (ie May through August and the election hasn't even been declared) as well as local news. This is not in the news for a brief period of time and hence WP:Not does not apply. --Golden Wattle  talk 05:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Given the improvement to the article since nomination and in particular the provision of multiple sources at least attempting to assert notability, on consideration I think this is now a Weak keep. I still think that election candidates in general are not notable as candidates alone and notability needs to be separately established in each case. -- Mattinbgn\talk 07:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources already added do just about establish notability. Agree that candidates are not generally notable but the coverage in realiable sources already received does appear to be sufficient. As to the argument that this is just temporary news coverage I cannot see that this candidate will not remain notable. If for some reason he is not elected the coverage of why he is not elected will only further enhance his notability. Davewild 19:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as improved, but only because this is Blaxland and the national news coverage of this to date has been much higher than the average candidate. John Vandenberg 13:46, 26 September 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.