Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Falinski


 * 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 of the discussion was no consensus, default to keep. Editors arguing for keep have focused on this candidate's near-certainty to become an Australian MP later this year and the coverage he has already received from his political activism and candidacy. Editors arguing for delete disputed his notability hitherto and argued that he does not deserve an article until after the election. Similar debates have arisen with the UK general election last year as well. These cases tend to be borderline on AfDs and the likelihood of a "keep" outcome scales with the certainty of winning, but the AfD community generally can't agree on a blanket rule on what to do with candidates of upcoming elections with high chances of winning but otherwise have limited notability. Deryck C. 16:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Jason Falinski

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:BLP of a person whose only stated or reliably sourced indication of notability is being an as-yet-unelected candidate in a future election. As always, this is not a claim of notability that satisfies WP:NPOL — if you cannot demonstrate that a person was already eligible for a Wikipedia article for some other reason before he became a candidate, then he does not become eligible for an article until he wins the election. But the only other things here are that he served on a local government area council and that he was a past president of his political party's youth chapter, neither of which is a free pass over NPOL either if the substance and sourcing aren't at the level necessary to satisfy WP:GNG. In addition, it warrants mention that the creator's username is "Aurevoirbronny" — the incumbent MP Falinski defeated in candidate preselection for the next election is Bronwyn Bishop — so there's a clear conflict of interest of some kind here. Delete, without prejudice against recreation after election day if he wins. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. He's been a reasonably public figure in non-parliamentary politics for more than twenty years, including stints as president of the Young Liberals, as a key figure in Malcolm Turnbull's entry into parliament, and as a spokesperson for the Australian Republican Movement, as well as in local government, and is covered not just in mainstream press but in book sources too. He has more sources than some of our current MPs even deliberately excluding everything about his (extremely well-reported upon) preselection, and as an endorsed candidate for one of the safest Liberal seats in the country, he stands a 100% chance of being a federal MP in ten weeks. I mightn't have created it myself to avoid the chances that time would be wasted on a nomination like this, but deleting it now just to undelete it in ten weeks is a waste of everyone else's time when he'd still pass WP:GNG even if he got hit by a bus tomorrow. I really despise this habit some of Australian Wikipedia has of going out of their way to nominate people for deletion specifically on the basis that they're an endorsed candidate for elected office as if it's a claim against notability: if the amount of sources on someone like this were treated like any other biography we wouldn't even be having the discussion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:44, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not enough to simply assert that greater notability and sourceability exist outside of anything that's actually in the article — if those things are true, then they have to be explicitly shown in the article as written. But that hasn't been done here; as written, the article is claiming and sourcing nothing substantive beyond the preselection itself (which is not, in and of itself, valid basis for a Wikipedia article.) And if "we might have to recreate this again in ten weeks" were, in and of itself, enough of a reason to keep an article, then we'd have to keep every article about any candidate at all in any election — and then we wouldn't be an encyclopedia anymore, but a PR repository of campaign brochures. If you want the article to be kept, then add more substance and better sourcing to it so that it makes his preexisting notability clear — but it's not enough to just claim that he has preexisting notability if the article isn't showing it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He has a couple of hundred Factiva hits prior to his nomination for preselection, with quite a few in detail, in quite a few different contexts, and in quite a few different forms of media. You can't argue that it's a case of WP:BLP1E because he got specific national media as president of the Young Liberals and for his role in the Australian Republican Movement and for his role in the Malcolm Turnbull preselection last decade (amongst other things) before it ever came to this. (Of course, then he got a tonne of useful coverage about his preselection, too.) There isn't an exception to WP:GNG that makes articles on someone with hundreds of newspaper articles, radio and television sources, and book sources not meet that just because you can't be bothered doing your homework. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my "homework" to do — I can only do WP:BEFORE research in databases and resources that I have access to, and do not have a responsibility to psychically know that better coverage might exist in databases that I don't have access to. And since any coverage of him at all is entirely nonexistent in any resources that I can access, that leaves me able to evaluate the article's includability or nonincludability solely on the basis of the volume of sourcing that is or isn't present in the article as written. If you have access to the resources necessary to demonstrate that he does actually pass GNG on depth and volume of coverage that hasn't been shown yet, then that's great, but that makes getting the article up to scratch your homework and not mine. And as I noted the first time, GNG is not passed just because somebody asserts that media coverage exists — anybody can claim that media coverage exists of anything, even if it actually doesn't. So GNG is not passed by asserting that more coverage exists than the article is showing — it's passed by somebody putting in the time and effort needed to ensure that a GNG-satisfying depth and volume of coverage is present in the article. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. "Entirely nonexistent"? Honey, I'm pretty sure you have access to Google. I don't write articles at gunpoint under the threat of deletionists doing stupid things - I write them if I'm asked, politely. "I can't be bothered looking into his notability and he's a candidate for public office" is not a reason for deletion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Kindly take your snarky attitude and stuff it in a gopher hole. I know how to Google, and I did — what I found was almost exclusively coverage of the preselection itself (which is not a thing that gets a person a Wikipedia article). Other than that, there were a few glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, but I did not find any strong evidence of coverage that was about him in the substantive way needed to satisfy GNG. A person does not, for instance, get over GNG just because you can find five or ten articles in which they're quoted giving soundbite in an article whose main subject is something or somebody else that is not him — which is the sort of "coverage" that people frequently try to pass off as showing GNG, but it doesn't. Passing GNG is a matter of the quality of coverage that can be shown, not the raw number of text matches that can be found. It's certainly possible that better coverage may exist in subscription databases that I don't have access to — but that coverage has to be dug out and shown before it counts for anything, because Google certainly isn't offering the level of proof needed. Bearcat (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you really wanted to assess the sources (instead of lazily trying to reinforce your position), you could (shock!) try searching for him with various preselection terms removed. (Or, even better, do an actual newspaper search! Someone who makes as many deletion nominations as you should surely have a library card. Of course, if you did that, then you wouldn't be able to justify nominating well-sourced topics for deletion on a whim as easily, so I can't say I'm surprised you don't bother.) There is a lot more than glancing coverage out there and "I quickly Googled someone currently in the headlines for something and I found things related to the thing he's in the headlines for, couldn't be bothered going beyond that" is a shoddy deletion argument. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You might want to remind yourself where I live again, if you think that my library card — which is in my hand as I type this, just so you can't accuse me of not having one again — would give me access to any pregooglable newspaper coverage of an Australian municipal councillor. I quite regularly spend hours at a time combing through the newspaper databases that I have access to, so I need no lessons in research skills from you — but I can only dig into the newspaper databases that are available for me to dig into, and beyond that I'm limited to Google. This is not a question of what I could or couldn't be "bothered" to do. All Wikipedians do not have perfectly equal access to all newspaper coverage that has ever existed at all — libraries pick and choose the databases they offer to their clientele, so just because you can access old Australian newspaper coverage does not mean that I can. So the fact that I can't find this 20-year-old coverage that you're claiming is out there does not mean I'm a bad Wikipedian — if it's really out there, then somebody who can access it needs to add it to the article so that his notability and sourceability become more apparent than it is in the version that exists right now. But I do not have access to the necessary resources to be that somebody — the databases I can access are different from the ones you can, so I can only evaluate the article on the basis of resources that I can access. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete "a key figure in Malcolm Turnbull's entry into parliament" and serving as a spokesperson for the Australian Republican Movement do not seem to be notable roles to me. My searches produce little coverage prior to his selection as a parliamentary candidate. Stating that he is contesting a safe seat and is therefore given a free pass is incorrect. WP:NPOL is very clear about this. AusLondonder (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when did people forget that WP:GNG exists? He has hundreds of sources about him, and it's not like plenty of them aren't in Google. Running for office is not a reason against deletion. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where are they? Why don't you add them to the article? AusLondonder (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why don't you? Hundreds of sources of sufficient specificity = passes WP:GNG. I don't expand articles at gunpoint, and I take badly to other editors voting delete when sources indisputably exist. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ugh. (Yes, that's my vote.) Look, I've been hardline delete on these cases for many years, but in the end I've come to the view that these kinds of AfDs are really a waste of everyone's time, given that they will have a straight-down-the-line result come election time. Yes, this one's a little way out, but there's also enough other activity to make notability at least a reasonable discussion regardless of his candidacy (especially presidency of the Young Libs). I have not gone in detail into these sources, as events will soon render such a thing a waste of time, but there is a fair preponderance of it. So I guess you could say that I kind of lean keep, unenthusiastically, with no prejudice against another AfD post-election if by some miracle he loses. I freely admit very little policy basis for this !vote, beyond thinking we all have better things to do with our time than having full-fledged AfD debates about shoo-in electoral candidates. Frickeg (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There have been elections in which the "shoo-in" candidate actually lost in the end (Google "Rolf Dinsdale"), or was forced to withdraw in advance of election day for health or scandal reasons, or occasionally even died (see Mel Carnahan). We're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions, per WP:CRYSTAL — we're in the business of waiting until the election is over. Bearcat (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Carnahan? A state governor? Hardly equivalent. I'm fully aware of all that, and as I said I have no problem with the article being AfDed after the election should something along those lines happen - although I suspect I'd be arguing keep based on the other coverage. But this whole discussion is the exact reason I went this way, and that I'm now formalising this to a keep !vote: look at all the Drama that has been generated, and the time wasted, for something that, two months from now, will 99% be an open-and-shut case. In principle candidate articles should not be created - but let's not waste all this time on the shoo-in ones that are, especially ones with a clear case for notability such as here (and the sources stuff - I mean, his roles alone suggest there will be sources, even if they aren't accessible). This was also discussed on WT:AUP prior to this nomination, which might have been a good place to raise things too. Frickeg (talk) 02:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is nearly a dead certainty that he will be elected, with the party he will contest the seat for being holding with a 30% margin, thus being one of the safest in the country. So unless he goes under a bus, come the election whether it be 10 weeks for 10 months away, he will then be notable. So any deletion will only be short term. And as stated above, he is already a public figure. If it was an article seeking to promote the candidate through puffing up his achievements then it should be deleted, but as it stands it is a down the middle statement of facts, so keep. Mbrjunc (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The margin in the Division of Mackellar is 18%. He was a councillor. That does not meet WP:NPOL AusLondonder (talk) 09:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG is a thing. His notability is not predicated on him being a political candidate, it's predicated upon him having hundreds of sources about him going back twenty years. Being a political candidate is not a reason for deletion, much as a couple editors seem to think so. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The 2-party preferred margin is 69/31 so 38%. Short of a major boilover, Falinski is a shoe in. Even if this article is deleted it will likely only be temporary. If editors spent the time they have bitching over points of order to instead improve the article, we would probably have a much better end product. I mean 18 posts by one editor on a delete nomination that if carried will probably only last for 2 months, a bit over the top? Aurevoirbronny (talk) 03:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You're obviously not a new editor, as this edit shows. However, where you succeed at creating new pages, you fail at maths. The margin is 18%. Nearly 19% to be accurate. Bishop won 68.84% of the 2PP vote in 2013. So if the Liberal Party suffered a 2PP swing of 19%, they would lose the seat. 68.84% - 19% = 49.84%. AusLondonder (talk) 09:23, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as still not enough for the applicable politicians notability, no other context to suggest this can be convincingly kept. SwisterTwister   talk  07:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  22:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep there are 76 articles that mention this politician in Factiva, over the last 15 years. There are a few that mention him in the title. eg "How the Falinski effect could elevate Morrison" - "Falinski gagged until he’s officially endorsed" and there is an article way back in 2002 that specifically discusses him "Getting the right spin on it." Clearly of note, not sure why this has been debated.Deathlibrarian (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, I raised this over at Wikiproject Australian politics a few weeks ago when it was created. At that point I decided not to nominate the article as it's more or less a foregone conclusion that Falinski will get up and that going through the deletion process would have been process wonkery for process's sake.  I still think that that is what this nomination is, but now that we're here it's pretty obvious that Falinski does not meet WP:NPOL.  Add me to the list of those who would like to know who User:Aurevoirbronny's real account is.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC).
 * Comment Elections fall under WP:CRYSTAL as a topic not usually appropriate for Wikipedia. The real concern, at this point, is whether the subject meets WP:GNG. I challenge editors who have access to more substantive sourcing to edit and improve the article. Enos733 (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - strictly following the guidelines means that this needs to currently be deleted. Regardless of his odds of winning, after the election is when this article should have been written. Perhaps userfying it until the election's results are in is the most appropriate way to go. Would not be adverse to that.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:59, 16 May 2016 (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.