Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Dropulich


 * 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 keep.  Sandstein  20:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Wayne Dropulich

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable person. Politician from a microparty which no longer exists who was elected as a result of error. He did not sit in Parliament, and did not do anything notable during the event, before the event, or since. The article is about this event, rather than him. All three conditions of WP:BLP1E are met. Cjhard (talk) 08:57, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN as having been declared elected to a Parliament. It is also not strictly accurate to say he was "elected as the result of an error" - the election in which he was elected was voided because of an error, which is not quite the same thing. Received plenty of biographical coverage after the election so there's enough to hang an article on; is one of exactly two people who have ever been elected and then not served any of their term (Heather Hill is the other, and her situation was quite different so Dropulich is literally unique); I also do not see winning an election as in any way compatible with WP:BLP1E. The claim that he meets the third condition of 1E is laughable. Frickeg (talk) 11:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Noting that WP:POLITICIAN is a guideline as to when a politician is likely to be notable, rather than a test, could you explain which criterion Wayne Dropulich satisfies, and how?
 * Could you also substantiate what is laughable about him meeting the third condition of 1E? Is it based on the idea that by winning the election, he played a substantial role in a significant event? With no evidence in reliable sources of any campaigning on his part, and the fact that he first got elected with less than 3,000 votes, there's no evidence that he did anything substantial. So what substantial, well-documented role did he play in a significant event? Cjhard (talk) 11:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Satisfies the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN, which is not ideally worded but clearly passes people who have been elected to positions not just those who have actually held them (the "yet" should be removed, as otherwise it violates WP:CRYSTAL). As for what substantial, well-documented role he played, well, he was elected. If that's not a substantial, well-documented role, I don't know what is. The fact that we had a stupid voting system at the time doesn't negate that. Frickeg (talk) 11:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just noting that the first criterion of WP:POLITICIAN is described as "a secondary criterion" which is indicative of a very strong likelihood that the person meets the primary criterion. This case is a clear exception. Cjhard (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How is it "a clear exception", besides your personal opinion that a man elected to national office wasn't "substantial"? The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because the test is the holding of political office, not the mere technicality of winning an election to an office that the person didn't ever actually hold for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. WP:POL explicitly says that it also applies to those who have been elected to an office but have not yet assumed it. It does not say that they have to assume that office in order for the guideline to apply. Frickeg (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not yet assumed office (i.e. newly elected people who will be sworn in within days of the election) is not the same thing as not ever. The only thing the "have been elected but not yet assumed office" condition covers off is the presumption of notability during the brief transition period until the actual swearing-in. It's the actual holding of the office that determines whether the article gets to stay in place permanently, however — a person who was initially declared elected, and had their article rush-started right away, would be subsequently deleted if, for example, they were found to have lost on a recount, or were disqualified from holding the office for legal reasons, because the inclusion test is ultimately the holding of office. The technicality of the election itself only extends the temporary presumption of notability to the newly-created articles in the first few days or weeks during which the person is still an officeholder-elect — it's meant as "don't rush a single-sourced stub out the door in that first few days when people are first getting all the new articles into place", not as "a person who was initially declared elected but never actually held office at all still gets to keep an article in perpetuity just because he was technically elected to the office he never actually held". Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The guideline itself does not support anything you've just said. All it says is "not yet assumed office" - it doesn't say "yet" only means days or weeks away from swearing in, and it certainly doesn't say anything about "temporary presumption of notability", which is most emphatically not a thing. Either someone is notable, or they are not - they cannot become non-notable due to subsequent events. Dropulich clearly qualifies under most readings of this guideline - not under yours, clearly, but your reading of the guideline is not the same as the guideline itself. If the guideline meant all the things you just said it meant, then it would say those things, but it doesn't. Frickeg (talk) 00:39, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The use of the word "yet" supports what Bearcat said. "Yet" means something is going to happen in the future. Its use in a sentence with "persons who have been elected to such offices" indicates that there's a connection between the election and the imminent holding of office. For your reading of the section to be correct, the word "yet" in the criteria is superfluous and confusing. Cjhard (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Er, no, I was correct about the way NPOL works. It's not enough to just insist that the letter of what NPOL says has been met, because it's possible to quibble about the "letter" of absolutely any Wikipedia notability guideline at all — it's necessary to be familiar with the consensus, as established by the corpus of all AFD discussions about similar topics, of how NPOL is actually applied in cases of dispute. (For example, how much coverage is enough to get a local politician, such as a mayor or a city councillor, over NPOL #2? The guideline doesn't explicitly say how much it takes — but AFD has a consensus that it takes quite a bit more than some editors might want it to.) And I was entirely correct about how NPOL is actually applied by AFD in cases of debate about what it does or doesn't mean: the includability or excludability of a politician depends on holding office, not just on technically winning election to an office that for some reason the person didn't ever actually come to hold. And by the way, yes, there is such a thing as a "temporary presumption of notability". There are certain specialized criteria where as long as they're verifiably passed, we allow an inadequately sourced article to stick around for a period of time pending improvement — such as newly-elected politicians in the first few days after the election when they haven't actually been sworn in yet — but such an article can still be deleted in the future if the topic's sourceability and improvability never actually materialize, and there are no criteria that ever confer a permanent exemption from the topic ever actually having to pass GNG at all. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere. Suffice to say I am also well aware of how NPOL works (sorry if I implied that you weren't - that wasn't my intention, merely to say that one interpretation of NPOL is not the same as a universal interpretation). If you are relying on convention here, I invite you to provide some examples of instances where your interpretation of the guideline prevailed, specifically with regards to the "elected but not seated" instance (I am well aware, and have strongly supported, deletion of unsuccessful candidates). (I think our wires may be crossed on the whole "temporary presumption of notability" thing. You are citing WP:IAR cases where someone technically isn't notable but is kept because there's no point going through the process just to undelete them should an impending event go a certain way. This is not what NPOL, or any notability guideline, grants.) Frickeg (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Elected to national office, obviously meets WP:POLITICIAN. Elected (and unelected) in a situation unique in Australian history, with the plenty of biographical coverage that comes with winning a national election. As I stated on the talk page, claiming "winning a national election" as an example of WP:BLP1E is the single most absurd attempt at stretching that guideline that I have ever seen. Of course he "did [something notable]" (he won a national election!). The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a very weird case. Usually politicians meet notability guidelines by virtue of their position. I reckon the justification for that being that any politician on the national stage would some sort of coverage that could establish their notability apart for the election victory. In this case, however, the candidate was not notable prior to running, ran and won an election whose result was voided, and then got defeated in the special election. From what I can see, and I've been scraping Google to find something, this guy really has nothing that makes him notable except for winning the election. I disagree with The Drover's Wife that this is an egregious use of WP:BLP1E. I think it's more a case of WP:POLITICIAN contradicting WP:NOTABILITY. If we drop WP:POLITICIAN, there is no reason for this guy to have an article. Acebulf (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * He has sufficient biographical coverage in reliable sources, being that - like all minor party Senators - his background was very interesting to journalists and was reported on as such. If he'd written a book and been profiled as much instead of being elected to the Senate, we wouldn't be here. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's the holding of a notable position that determines whether a person qualifies for an article or not, not the yes/no switch of whether they technically won an election or not — a person can be appointed or acclaimed to office and get an article even though they weren't technically elected, and a person can technically win an election but not get a standalone biography if for some reason they didn't actually end up holding the office (e.g. if they were found to actually have lost on a recount). The situation is entirely appropriate to cover in the article on the election, but it's not a reason why we need a standalone BLP of him as an individual separately from that — especially given that even the sources here are about the situation and not the person, and simply don't support any biographical content about him. So the place for content about this is in the election article, not in a standalone BLP about the person. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify here: Dropulich was not found to have actually lost on a recount, and in fact you can't "technically win" an election and then lose on a recount (at least not in Australia). You can seem to have won an election and then lose on a recount, but that is absolutely not what happened here: Dropulich was formally declared elected to the Australian Senate, and the subsequent voiding of that election was the key thing. But for the delay in the beginning of Senate terms, he would have served in the Senate for that period. As for biographical material, he got a full biographical profile in the SMH and plenty of coverage in other articles about all the new cross-benchers generally. I also don't think the whole "appointed or acclaimed rather than elected" thing works in an Australian context, as no members of any parliament are technically "appointed" and are certainly not "acclaimed" - replacements to the Senate, state upper houses, etc., are elected either by the relevant state parliament or by recount. Frickeg (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As per Frickeg, he did not "actually lose on a recount": he was "actually" elected to the Senate. There was indeed more than sufficient biographical coverage (including personal profiles), as obviously happens with a new minor party Senator. If you're going to !vote on a nomination like this, it would help to understand the subject: "unsuccessful election candidate" precedents don't apply to successful candidates. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it's truly relevant to Bearcat's point about being elected without holding office, as that's exactly what happened here, but Frickeg, you are mistaken on the point about members of Parliament being appointed: List of Australian Senate appointments. Jordon Steele-John was appointed to the Senate this year. Cjhard (talk) 23:45, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Steele-John was not appointed to the Senate, either. He won a court-ordered countback by the AEC as a result of the High Court declaring his ticketmate Scott Ludlam ineligible. Please stop digging. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cjhard, given that I wrote the appointments page, I am well aware of it. But technically, they aren't really "appointments", they are still elections - the state parliament votes on the person to be elected to the casual vacancy. They are colloquially called appointments, but actually the page would probably be better moved (especially given all the current stuff). But that's beside the point - I am absolutely not mistaken. And as for Steele-John - as The Drover's Wife says, he was even less "appointed" than usual, given that he was elected by a countback. Frickeg (talk) 07:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that Dropulich lost on a recount; that was an example of how a person can technically be claimed to have won an election, but not get a Wikipedia article for it because they didn't actually hold the office afterward. It's the holding of the office, not the initial fact of being technically elected to it, that governs whether a person passes NPOL or not. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Satisfies the criteria at WP:NPOL. He was elected to the Australian Senate. As noted above, he has also received significant coverage in reliable sources, such as this profile piece from The Sydney Morning Herald. AusLondonder (talk) 00:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Ugh, I have to say, I hate WP:BLP1E. I can kind of see the point of it, for example there shouldn't be an article on that guy who hit the CEO of Qantas with a pie despite there being plenty of coverage on him. But from a historical record point of view, I can't stand how the 1-event guidelines are treated as the brightest of bright-line rules, and as the discussion proceeds, usually involves disregarding other circumstances, other notability guidelines and prior consensus. While Dropulich's situation is rather unique, I believe he should be included on the basis of the 'was elected' criterion—and the same should apply to the many do-nothing backbenchers with scant bio information, people found ineligible, people who died before or early into their term, and those WA Legislative Council members who are elected for a month or so to replace someone who resigned to contest the lower house. --Canley (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We don't have a "was elected" criterion for politicians; we have a held the office criterion, which can be passed by appointees who were never actually "elected" and can be failed by people who technically won election but then never actually held the office for some reason. Bearcat (talk) 20:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 *  Redirect  to Australian_federal_election,_2013. As the article currently reads, it is primarily about the 2013 election. I would suggest that the article be sent to draft space and substantially rewritten with the focus is on the individual subject. If, as some have suggested, there are sources that exist about the subject, then it would be easier to determine whether the subject meets WP:NPOL and WP:GNG --Enos733 (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per additional work on the article. --Enos733 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, normally I am a great supporter of WP:BLP1E because I think it should be enforced much more often. But in this case, I think Dropulich needs to be an exception.  We have a guy who was elected as a Senator, received a ton of press coverage beyond the usual "man bites dog" stuff, and then had it all fall apart, prompting another wave of coverage and interest.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC).
 *  Redirect Weak keep, and merge, as per above. While the content is notable, the person is not.  It is notable as part of the 2013 / 2014 elections.  The person is only notable because of the nature of the 2013 election and the second followup election in 2014.  Notability is not inherited.  This really is a 1E otherwise as is.  While they were elected to the national level of government, they never(?) participated in such.  If the person does ever have another interesting event then perhaps they may have their own article.  The subject matter is essentially only about (one of the) results of the two back-to-back elections.   Aoziwe (talk) 12:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Changing my !vote to a (very) weak keep per below and further work on article. Aoziwe (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep While he isn't super notable, I don't see why he should be excluded any more than say a no-name backbench MP from one of the major parties should be excluded. Ultimately, he received considerable media coverage as a result of being elected to federal Parliament – and then again when he subsequently lost his spot when the results were declared void. He again ran for election at the special election, and there was coverage on him following his failure to gain a seat at that. It's really more than just one event, and any criticisms on the quality of the article should be disregarded now as I've rewritten it and updated the references.Kb.au (talk) 12:44, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:BLP1E is meant to prevent media focus on otherwise low profile individuals. Notice where it says "each of three conditions" must be met? The second of which is Who is a low-profile individual: "A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention". Since he actively ran for office, knowing that he would get lots of attention should he win, he is not a low profile individual. --GRuban (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Who_is_a_low-profile_individual: "Low-profile: ... may have attempted to maintain a high profile unsuccessfully in the past, or successfully for a limited time (and may be notable as a result of either), but has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then. Often allegedly notable only for a minor role in one major event, or for a recurring major role in a series of minor events." Cjhard (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * has demonstrated a consistent pattern of low-profile activity since then He ran again. Also, he played a major role in a major event - a senate election.


 * Keep WP:BLP1E is not an argument for deletion.  If there is no need for an article on the topic, this does not mean deletion is the remedy, this means merger is the remedy.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - an elected member of the Australian Senate is notable, despite his short term therein. He passes WP:POLITICIAN with flying colours. -- Longhair\talk 12:07, 20 November 2017 (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.