Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Hanson-Young


 * 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 delete. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 22:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Hanson-Young
This person will be running as a Senate candidate in South Australia for the Australian Greens. The Greens are yet to have success in winning Senate seats in South Australia - the last time polling 6%, whereas you need about 14% to get a seat. Crystal balling aside, and the unlikeliness of winning, there is no other notability guidelines met. Prod was rolled back by User:Rebecca. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. She is a notable candidate, having run for the Legislative Council earlier this year (in a ticket that did get people elected), and has a fair chance of election to the Senate in the wake of the rapidly rising Green vote in the state. This could well be of interest to plenty of people in advance of the federal election, and there are plenty of verifiable sources around. Rebecca 03:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - Results of the Australian legislative election, 2004, shows that the Green vote was 6% in the Senate. South Australian legislative election, 2006 shows that the Green vote is 4.3% in the Legislative Council (state version of upper house). This would indicate that (aside from state federal differences) the Green vote is actually declining and not rapidly rising and would need a big jump to get to the 14% mark by this time next year for the 2007 Federal election. As to the point that Greens got a state seat - there were 11 available so they needed to top-up at 8.3% whereas for the Senate there are 6, so they need 14.2% - so that's why State success will not automatically translate to FEderal success, as there are less seats available. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - electoral results are largely irrelevant. She is notable because she is the leader of a political party that will be running in the election. Zzymurgy 04:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- partly because without having won an election she is not particularly notable, and also because the article contains very little of value. Her chances of election are not great in what is a still a Democrat stronghold, and there is nothing here that cannot be recreated within 60 seconds if she does succeed. Jeendan 04:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete losing elections does not make one notable. Unless she is already notable for other reasons, she fails the WP:NN test.  A "fair chance of being elected" implies potential "future" success.  WikiPedia is not a Crystal Ball.  --Jayron32 04:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete IF she wins (which seems unlikely based on her previous attempts), then maybe she can have an article. TJ Spyke 05:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Recreate if she wins. Resolute 06:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete.--cj | talk 09:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal ball - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable candidate. Haven't we already deleted an article on her in the past?  Or was that about her husband Zane Young, who is also a Greens candidate?  --Roisterer 14:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Longhair\talk 21:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Crystal balling, no useful content, no reliable sources. Being part of a ticket in which people got elected doesn't give you a wikipedia article. Andjam 22:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly not notable.TheRanger 01:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge if there are other green party candidates articles over here. Per WP:C&E -- Ageo020 ( Talk  •  Contribs ) 01:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unelected and nn political candidate. Can be recreated if she actually wins.  Lankiveil 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC).
 * Keep. Not being elected does not mean she is not notable. Andrea Mason has never been elected, but she has an extensive article.Zzymurgy 03:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Andrea Mason is the leader of a mid-range state political party. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - mid-range political party? The Greens consistently poll better than Family First. She is just as notable as any other party's lead candidate. Zzymurgy 03:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - That's right, Greens are upper-mid range. FF are not. Mason was the designated spokesperson for the Federal FF campaign. Hanson-Young is not. Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 03:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - actually, she is. That's what lead candidate means. Zzymurgy 04:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, Bob Brown is the leader.Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 04:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply - She's the SA leader, just as Natasha Stott Despoja is the SA leader on the Democrats ticket, and Andrea Mason will be the SA leader of Family First. Leading a state campaign is just as notable as being the Parliamentary leader of the Federal party, as South Australians won't be able to vote for Bob Brown. Zzymurgy 04:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no claims to notability have been established, however. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per strong argument raised by Blnguyen. -- Samir धर्म 04:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete this one and undelete if necessary, per Blnguyen.
 * Delete per nom. OhNo itsJamie Talk 06:06, 20 October 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.