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. The combined sources are sufficient to satisfy notability. Malinaccier (talk) 00:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hajnal Ban (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is about a minor local government politician and unsuccessful candidate for federal parliament. Does not appear to be sufficiently notable at present. Grahame (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Her only Ghit is mainly about trying to become taller [1]. WWGB (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Her surgery, book and political campaign are together sufficient to achieve notability. WWGB (talk) 03:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. This politician has gained national and international media attention for her cosmetic surgery and written two books about it (one is yet unpublished). As reported on nine news the original book was a 'best seller', but was pulled from the market after the first edition run. References will be added, but I can't work out how to add them correctly yet. This entry took an enormous amount of research and time to collate to put on the site. Hajnal Ban has the same level of notability as Nicole Cornes and has room to move in her career. Please don't remove yet as sources and added information including the launch of her book in several weeks will add to her notability.--Propertysouth (talk) 02:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. I support keeping this page for the reasons stated above. This politician, while not at the first sub-national level of government, has gained sufficient national & international notoriety to have a Wiki at least in the short-medium term. Murphmeister (talk) 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I added two references. The coverage of the lengthening surgery makes her notable, even if her political work doesn't. -- Eastmain (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Notable political figure in her own right, plenty of verifiable sources. Rebecca (talk) 03:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to my comment above I quote the following sections of the policy on notability - Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7] A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. - Hajnal ban has, under the spirit and basis of this entry been written about in the following magazines; Who, That's Life, Cleo and Woman's Day. These stories have been syndicated to the United Kingdom. She story has appeared on Today Tonight, Sunrise and general broadcast news. She has appeared in a Japanese magazine, CNN, on radio through the United Kingdom, Hungarian news, Jewish papers, Russian news outlets and Belgium News. He story is widely broadcast.--Propertysouth (talk) 06:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NOT TABLOID. unless of course she becomes elected to something significant, which is presumably the purpose of the article. See the section "future ambitions", or the coy home page at http://www.hajnalban.com/ 2RS=N only if it's about something notable. DGG (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• further comment I submit the following response to the entry titled 'not tabloid' above;
• Hajnal Ban has not only received attention from Tabloid outlets. She has been quoted and sourced in various different types of media outlets. Today she appeared on 7,9, and 10 news and 4BC radio about the Qantas 'tall tax'. Her comments were sought by the media as 1) a barrister who has worked in the field of discrimination and 2) because of her notoriety.
• The media outlets also referred to her contributions to the advancement on the issue discrimination via her work as an author. I refer to the following criteria of notable; ... authors .. and other creative professionals: The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
• If the above criteria re tabloid were applied, then Nicole Cornes and many others on Wiki would have to be removed because their work is Tabloid form. Many of the celebrities mentioned on Wiki are purley of tabliod notearity, making the above argument an actual point to keep this entry, not delete it (because the entry points out that Hajnal Ban is a 'tabloid' notable). Tabloid or not, tabliod is not a reason to exclude someone from a Wiki entry. Further I ask (I may have not read and am happy to stand corrected) if Wiki criteria actually excludes tabloid coverage as a basis to exclude a person from Wiki. Unless it does then the above entry, with due respect and honor to its author, has no basis in policy.
• As the author of the section on future ambitions I can say i have no direct connection to Hajnal Ban, and that section was to highlight her refusal to stand at the state seat of Beaudesert as quoted in the Courier Mail. This entry is not to launch a further bid, but to provide information on a current notable Australian.
• Finally I argue the very fact there is considerable debate here on Ban is evidence that this is a notable person --Propertysouth (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, plenty of news coverage of this person. She was pretty notorious even before the leg-lengthening thing as a serial candidate and for being a young woman in a political party more associated with old farmers. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:31, 27 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep, seems to have several separate claims to moderate notability... AnonMoos (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Lankiveil describes why she's received so much coverage (plus the fact that she was born in Israel). I'm not sure if she'd have as much media coverage, or a Wikipedia entry, if she were a fat old bloke who'd just had his stomach stapled. This kind of disturbs me. Are we about the public interest, or what interests the public? As an aside, I usually advocate deleting past or present candidates for parliament to avoid Wikipedia becoming an election soapbox, but that isn't as much an issue here. Andjam (talk) 11:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "a fat old bloke who'd just had his stomach stapled". Mikey Robins has an article too. WWGB (talk) 11:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete' Non-notable Local Government politician and failed state parliamentary candidate. The article is verging on promotional (it certainly reads like it came out of LNP headquarters -"her passionate opposition to the State's decision ...") and the only significant coverage involves her cosmetic surgery. Being in the medical story-of-the-week in the Sunday paper doesn't mean an article is warranted. Mikey Robbins was at least notable before his stomach stapling. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ban has received much more coverage then just the 'Sunday papers' as shown. Saying that it is just Sunday papers that Ban appears in sounds like an unsubstantiated line from ALP headquaters. The delete case must come up with real data or policy violations to hold credability in this debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.29.94.253 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well sourced and encyclopedic article worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Notable subject and well-sourced article. Rlendog (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.