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)[reply]

Wayne Dropulich[edit]

Wayne Dropulich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 10:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 10:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
How is it "a clear exception", besides your personal opinion that a man elected to national office wasn't "substantial"? The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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's Wife (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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's Wife (talk) 23:52, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Keep per additional work on the article. --Enos733 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my !vote to a (very) weak keep per below and further work on article. Aoziwe (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual#Behavior_pattern_and_activity_level: "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)[reply]
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.
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.
More