Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vern Hughes (2nd nomination)


 * 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The result was   withdrawn by nominator. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Vern Hughes
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Re-nominating after the previous AfD went away from the matters at hand. Fails WP:POLITICIAN as he hasn't held any elected office at international, national or state level, and has not received any significant coverage from reliable sources independent of the subject - an automatic fail for WP:N. His former party, People Power, was not a major state (sub-national) party and this means WP:POLOUTCOMES is also a fail. The three independent sources do not provide the significant coverage required and the remainder are not independent, except for the Latham Diaries which is apparently a single mention only and therefore an example of namechecking and in this case attempting to inherit notability. The lack of proper citations of the last three sources makes them unreliable and they only support commentary by the subject and are therefore not independent. They also appear to be only contributions and not full presentations as such. This all being the case, this article is in effect promotional and should be deleted. Curse of Fenric (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Revoking nomination in light of the work done by Jtydog. Curse of Fenric (talk) 11:30, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Jinkinson   talk to me  02:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. This was closed as no consensus a week ago, and making a second nomination because you disagree with the outcome is utterly inappropriate. Take the previous close to WP:DRV if you disagree with the closer's decision (not that they could have come down any other way). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 02:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A no-consensus close is exactly the type of situation where it is appropriate to relist for further discussion — a "no consensus" is not the same thing as a "keep". So no, it's not "inappropriate". Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't necessarily see the problem with starting this AfD since the closer specifically suggested that, but I still think the article should be kept. There is a very great deal of mischaracterisation of the previous arguments in the nomination. To begin with, the nominator has misinterpreted WP:POLOUTCOMES quite severely. The relevant passage says this: Leaders of registered political parties at the national or major sub-national (state, province, prefecture, etc.) level are usually considered notable regardless of that party's degree of electoral success. People Power quite clearly qualifies as a (former) registered political party at both federal and state level (they never contested a federal election so I'd acknowledge that being somewhat dodgy, although they were registered; however, they certainly did contest a state election, and with quite a bit of fanfare too). Secondly, there were substantially more than three independent sources offered. The three being referred to were supplementary sources used to bolster the case (Latham, and two well-regarded scholarly textbooks, one of which included a quote from Hughes as a chapter intro and the other of which described him as "an important figure in the disability sector"). The coverage of his involvement with People Power, including in the Age, the Australian and Crikey, was presented as the primary evidence. All of this is linked in the previous discussion. Clearly this contradicts the attempt above to imply that there is no independent significant coverage. Lastly, the nominator might have liked to acknowledge a potential COI as someone who knows the subject personally. Frickeg (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I looked further into the claim of registration with the AEC and they were only registered for 12 months. I looked for coverage of the 2006 Victorian Election, and there was very little - contradicting the above claim of "fanfare". This suggests that the nominator is right when he says that People Power is not a major party in any sense. If I have missed anything I suggest User:Frickeg provide some evidence of it. Crikey should be ignored as an independent source as there is an established relationship between Vern Hughes and Crikey through People Power's other founder Stephen Mayne. The coverage by the Age and the Australian does not appear substantive. User:Curse of Fenric presents a strong case and there is no COI that I can see within the nomination whether he knows him or not. That aspect should be ignored now because that's what derailed the first AfD. Let's discuss the sources and the notability shall we? BritainD (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, WP:POLOUTCOMES says nothing about major political parties, only registered ones. I'm not sure I'd use WP:POLOUTCOMES as the sole argument in a deletion debate (i.e. if there was nothing else, I wouldn't use it as an inherent notability argument), but let's be clear that Hughes is clearly covered by what is there. People Power received plenty of coverage, and if you didn't notice I suggest you re-read the previous discussion because there was plenty of stuff linked there. For more general People Power coverage, Fairfax News Archives has a fair amount (and that's with a fairly specific search term; there's probably more out there). As for the COI, I am quite happy for this to be the last time it's mentioned, but given that the nominator gave oxygen to what you say "derailed" the previous AfD it seems prudent to at least note it. Frickeg (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how a party that was only registered for less than twelve months could assist in this matter? WP:POLOUTCOMES does say "usually" and I would consider the short period of registration to establish an exception to the rule you are relying on. It is not correct for this article to reference People Power coverage, and besides this 24 articles can hardly be described as "fanfare" when I'm certain any similar search for notable politicians would attract a lot more hits. BritainD (talk) 08:44, 31 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I just reviewed the article.  He has been mentioned in major news outlets and in the book of another politician.  Doesn't seem to be huge deal but meets WP:NOTABILITY as far as I can see. Jytdog (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep He is notable enough --Star Log, Lfrankblam, Kirk Out (talk) 08:18, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, per my comment in the last discussion; there doesn't appear to be coverage of Hughes that is substantial and independent. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC).
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)




 * This has been closed as no-consensus once, and on the second time has been withdrawn by the nominator and has four people supporting it being kept and two deletion. Relisting it appears unnecessary - is pretty clear there will be no consensus to delete - this is the zombie AfD that won't die at this point. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 14:38, 7 November 2014 (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.