Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kaye


 * 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 debate was KEEP. Sufficiently notable.--Eloquence* 23:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

John Kaye
Failed candidate for a minor political party as a Delete:

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same criteria applies:
 * David Risstrom
 * Jenny Leong

BlueValour 18:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are the Greens a major party in Australia? I'm leaning delete here, but need some more info.  young  american  (ahoy-hoy) 00:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - nope; the composition of their House of Representatives is here which has Labour, Liberal, Country Liberal, Independent and Nationals but no Greens.
 * Comment Please disregard the above, the Australian Greens are obviously a notable party. Look at the Australian Senate for a start, where they presently have 4 of 76 senators and are vital to the opposition vote, despite the fact that the government has control. SM247 My Talk  00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment We are in to interesting semantics here :-) Notable in that they some influence perhaps but not a major party - major parties have seats in the lower house of any parliament. BlueValour 00:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but you appear to have no idea how the Australian political or electoral systems work, particularly with respect to the power balance and interplay between parties and preferences in the Senate. Note also that they polled around 7% of the primary vote in both houses, despite that they didn't pick up a seat in the lower house. As one who lives and votes here, please take my word for it, the Greens are notable. Any Australian will tell you likewise. This question is academic, as this person would not be notable even if he were an ALP or Liberal nominee. SM247 My Talk  00:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm sorry, but you appear to have not to have read my comment. I accept that they are notable but, in my view, not a major party - 7% is not what a major party polls in my view - notable, influential, I'm happy to take your word for. To provide an example, in the UK the 'United Kingdom Independence Party' is both notable and influential but no-one would describe them as a major party. BlueValour 01:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I did read your comment. The point is, why are you even raising the issue? My argument is that he would not be notable even if he was a major party candidate as he is not yet elected. SM247 My Talk  01:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I raised the issue because Youngamerican asked the question. This came up when we were debating deletes of USA and UK candidates. YA considers candidates from major parties worth an article; I take your view and say it depends on the candidate. Anyway, its been an interesting discussion and as a result I now know a bit more about Aussie politics! BlueValour 01:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete They are a notable party, but Senate candidates in Australia generally are not just by dint of running for office, becuase of the way the proportional voting system works. This guy isn't notable. Only recreate if elected to the NSW Legislative Council at next election (not until next year). SM247 My Talk  00:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep John Kaye. He gets 77 results in a search of an Australia New Zealand media database and there is enough verifiable info about him to write an article. Keep David Risstrom. There are 134 returns in an Australian New Zealand database so there is enough verifiable material available to allow a reasonable article to be written. Jenny Leong is more of a borderline case with 14 articles returned mainly on the topic of gay marriage. The John Kaye article is well written too and not the usual dump of his campaign brochure which is a bonus. Capitalistroadster 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Kaye, delete Leong no opinion on Risstrom. My reasoning is purely practical: Kaye is second on the Greens' announced ticket for the next NSW Legislative Council election, which is just around the corner. Seems a waste of time to delete only to have to recreate next year. Leong won't be on that ballot, which means she's not likely to win any seat anytime soon. Nick 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Kaye, delete Leong no opinion on Risstrom. My reasoning is purely practical: Kaye is second on the Greens' announced ticket for the next NSW Legislative Council election, which is just around the corner. Seems a waste of time to delete only to have to recreate next year. Leong won't be on that ballot, which means she's not likely to win any seat anytime soon. Nick 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep all 3; agree Leong is more marginal but she pooled significant percentage of the primary vote and may appear elsewhere - thus adequately notable and definitely verifiable. Other two as per comemnts by Nick and Capitalistroadster--A Y Arktos\talk 05:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Greens candidates who head the Senate ticket in a State. The way the Senate vote goes there is always a strong possibility that they will be elected. The Greens are now the strongest party outside the Coalition parties in government and the Labor Party, as the Democrats vote has crashed. --Bduke 09:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Both Kaye and Risstrom were very narrowly defeated in 2004 and in circumstances which were fairly controversial involving other parties preference deals. This should ensure their continuing relevance if not the fact that Kaye (at least) is a current candidate likely to win a state seat in 2007. --Chris Maltby 07:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Kaye. The 2007 campaign is very much under way already and the election is less that a year away. Kaye is a prominent candidate with good prospects of entering the parliament. --Wm 08:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Kaye and Risstrom. I think the lead candidate on a Greens senate ticket is notable, even if others are questionable, as they have a significant chance of winning a seat. Nick's reasoning is also a good reason to keep Kaye. Not sure one Leong, but 21% of the vote in Sydney in 2004, seems reasonably notable. JPD (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Risstrom in particular is highly notable - his campaign was a high-profile one, and he only missed out on a Senate seat by a freak consequence of the preferential voting system. I'd also argue that Kaye is notable, and I see no reason to delete Leong. Rebecca 05:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - not notable yet, and besides, many of us wanted to delete Articles for deletion/Irfan Yusuf and he got a higher proportion than these candidates.Blnguyen | rant-line 06:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I note that Irfan Yusuf's page survived this process. As for the vote count, Yusuf got 14,364 votes in an electorate where he had no chance of winning whereas Kaye received 291,845 and missed out on election by 0.5% of the total vote in circumstances which remain significant. Yusuf has vanished without trace from the political process, whereas Kaye is now contesting a winnable seat. Whatever the deletion rules are they should be applied without bias. --Chris Maltby 06:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So you say keep, Chris? Sam Wilson 07:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously. —Pengo 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable political candidate.--Peta 00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean up for NPOV. I wanted to know more about him, after reading something in the newspaper, and (of course) Wikipedia was my first stop. Sam Wilson 06:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Capitalistroadster. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:46, 8 July 2006 (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.