Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Hastie (politician)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. LFaraone 15:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Hastie (politician)

[edit]
Andrew Hastie (politician) (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)

The subject of this article fails WP:ONEEVENT as he is known only for his current political candidacy in an upcoming Australian federal by-election, with all references on him having appeared since this was announced and being focused on this fact. The usual convention is that Australian federal political candidates are not independently notable until they are elected, with this being the consensus of a discussion of this article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#Andrew Hastie (politician). While Mr Hastie's Army career was distinguished, it is not a source of independent notability as 1) his identity was legally protected as he was a member of the secretive Special Air Service Regiment so he received no coverage whatsoever for it until he announced his candidacy 2) the stories about his military service have been in the context of his political candidacy (he's running strongly on his military record) and 3) He did not hold a senior rank (he was a mid-ranked officer until he resigned to contest the election). Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Nick-D (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Full disclosure, I was the editor who approved this article through the AfC process. Nick-D and I have had a cordial back and forth regarding this article, which he felt should be a redirect, and I disagree with. I thought that if he felt strongly that a created article shouldn't be on Wikipedia, he should bring it to the AfD process, which he has graciously done. I understand his viewpoint, but in my opinion, this is a case that regardless of the outcome of the upcoming election, this fledgling politician clearly passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 04:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is rather tedious that it has had to come to this, since very possibly this whole affair will be rendered moot in two weeks' time. In the meantime, however, Hastie has no claim of passing GNG. He is known only and entirely for his candidacy for Canning; there is, to my knowledge, no coverage whatsoever of him in any other context, thus he fails ONEEVENT as Nick-D says. If he is successful - which he very well might be - then obviously he passes WP:POLITICIAN, but in the meantime he is not notable and the article is premature. We also want to discourage this kind of premature creation and actually had a kind of incubator for these a few years ago, which has fallen into abeyance. If someone wanted to host this in userspace until the by-election that would be a satisfactory solution as well - in fact, given that the article in its current state is quite decent, I would be happy to do so myself. Frickeg (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just the national television coverage alone is enough to satisfy WP:N. Perhaps if this was part of a general election collection of candidates we would not have received the national coverage of the person. But that's not the case here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON. If he does not win the by-election, he will be just another failed candidate with a flash of fame due to that one event. Redirect to the by-election and give each candidate a neutral paragraph or two if needed. I agree it's a nice article, but I'm sure someone could write an article about each of us if they cared to. --Scott Davis Talk 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nick. Definite 1E for me. If elected, obviously a different matter. Wait until then. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It should have been speedied or redirected, Onel5969 had no business forcing this time-sensitive situation through AfD, and I would suggest a WP:SNOW close as soon as possible. Hastie has absolutely no claim to notability besides his political candidacy: if he wins, he will be unquestionably notable, if he loses, he is unquestionably not notable, and the by-election is far too closely contested for an article to be created in advance and only serves as campaign propaganda. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regretfully as this article seems to be in good shape and is the work of a new editor. Regardless, I agree with the nominator's 1E rationale. The claim that Hastie has received ongoing nationwide media coverage is not really accurate as he only seems to have received coverage in the lead up to the election (i.e. his candidacy) which I don't think fits the definition of "ongoing". Of cse though this may change and in the future there may be more coverage (of either his political or military career, or both). I wonder if this might be USERFIED? Anotherclown (talk) 07:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone - The by-election will be held in 2 weeks time, and this AFD will run for 1 week. If he is elected (and he is the big favourite to win it, given he needs a 10% swing to lose it), the article will then be undeleted/recreated only 1 week after it's deleted. What a waste of time. If he loses, then I think that it should be selectively merged/redirected to Canning by-election, 2015. The-Pope (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would effectively create a special exemption from WP:NPOL, by which all candidates in current elections would suddenly become entitled to use Wikipedia as a campaign advertising platform for the duration of the campaign, and then only after the results were finalized could we even begin to entertain deletion of any of them. And that wouldn't just apply to by-elections either; it would apply equally to all of the thousands of candidates in a full-on general election, too. No matter how ridiculous it may seem to delete the article and then possibly have to restore it again in a week or two, creating a special waiver from our inclusion rules just because the election's not very far off would be a logistical nightmare that would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a public relations database. There's always the option of sandboxing it, too. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the nominator and other delete voters, and hopefully a WP:SNOW close. The concerns raised by The-Pope could be fixed by moving the article into userspace or WP:Draftspace. IgnorantArmies (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspending our normal inclusion standards for politicians, just because the by-election's only a couple of weeks away and we might have to recreate the article again, is a can of worms that no sane editor wants to open — it would require us to accept every article about every candidate in any current election at any level of government in every country in the entire world, and would instantly turn us from an encyclopedia into a repository of campaign brochures. And even if he is favoured to win, per WP:CRYSTAL we're not in the business of publishing electoral predictions. Simply put, we have to stick with the rules — granting a temporary special exemption to candidates in current elections, just because we might have to recreate them again (oh, the horror) if the candidate wins, would inherently vitiate the very reason that our inclusion standards for politicians even exist in the first place. Delete, obviously without prejudice against recreation if he wins; sandboxing in draft or userspace also acceptable. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would the result from a single AFD make a binding precedent that overrules NPOL? If I referred to this article in the next political candidate's AFD, I'd get OTHERSTUFFEXISTS fired at me. This isn't any old minor candidate. It's a by-election, so only one seat is being voted for, and the media focus is much higher than a normal state or national campaign (as the result is seen as a pointer to the status of the Prime Minister's standing). He isn't representing any old party, it's one of the two major political parties in the country and the incumbent party for this seat, so the prediction of victory is very high, it's currently paying about $1.22 (or 5/1 on) at the online bookies. This isn't a US style >2-year campaign, it's a 33 day campaign that's seen the Prime Minister appear numerous times alongside this candidate. If there was a case for a IAR on the standard notability guidelines (not rules) for political candidates, this is it. If it is deleted, will you salt it for that week to stop other well meaning people, political staffers or editors who want it to be a "PR database" from recreating it in the meantime? (and a disclaimer, in case anyone thinks I'm COI or connected to Hastie - my politics are almost completely opposite to his. So no, I don't know or support him in any way). The-Pope (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to regular practice. It would have been better to have been left as a redirect so that it could be easily recreated.--Grahame (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The claim by Nick-D that he is only known for his recent candidature ignores role as a member of SASR generally, and the fact he is linked to the incident regarding the severed hands. This case is only the second alleged war crimes investigation in Australia over the last 10 years, and Hastie is the only figure identified in public. For these reasons in my opinion he satisfies WP:GNG.--Klobfour (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He was only identified after, and because, of his political candidacy. According to the media reports, he played no direct role in the incident and was cleared. I'm not sure what you mean by "ignores role as a member of SASR generally" - given that the identities of SAS personnel are legally protected, no notability whatsoever is attached to this: quite the opposite in fact. Moreover, the SAS Regiment has 500+ members at any given point in time, including what must be around 30 officers, so there's no intrinsic notability from being a former member of the unit. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, as you did with your original entry arguing for AfD and you’ve done again here, you have conflated the cause of his identification (political candidacy) with the cause of his notoriety (SAS soldier involved in high profile incidents and political candidacy) in an attempt to argue for deletion in accordance with WP:ONEEVENT. This is a false argument as they are two distinct elements; however, there is of course a relationship between the two. His notoriety extends from his career as a SAS officer AND his political candidacy. Perhaps you can argue that WP:POLITICIAN shows that listing him prior to election fails to satisfy this rule, but it relies on him having no notoriety other than candidacy, which is clearly not the case. Secondly, as Graeme said it’s not just an election, it’s a by-election, and it’s a by-election which has attracted more attention than any other in perhaps the last 20 years (maybe since Ros Kelly in 1995?). It’s in the news every night, and Hastie appears in the newspapers every morning, sometimes more than once. The arguments that if he loses he’ll just be another failed candidate are a weak generalisation, as at the very least we know from the alleged war crimes investigation that there’s more to come. Thirdly, your argument regarding “no notability whatsoever” due to the legally protected status of SAS personnel is a fallacy. It’s the equivalent of saying an event is unimportant because no-one saw or reported it. Maybe that tree never fell in the forest? I’m unsure what the strength of the SAS Regiment officers and men is but seeing as it’s “legally protected” the statistics you’ve used must be a stab in the dark at best, and afford no relevance to the discussion. Finally, there appears to be very limited risk of this amounting to a partisan article seeing as there is no mention of policy or the usual politicking politicians get up to, and the bulk of the article is devoted to his military service. I stand by my comments regarding satisfaction of WP:GNG. He’s attracted numerous front page stories on BOTH his candidacy and his military career, and I’m certain the media coverage over the next two weeks will further show that this is the case. I’m unsure why but my guess from your entry editorialising his private life and your removal of the references to the “controversial” article in ‘‘The Age’’ (despite it being slammed by politicians and commentators of all persuasions) is that you must really dislike this guy for some reason, hence your attempt to steamroll over all who disagree with you. Prove me wrong with a reasoned argument. Klobfour (talk) 12:25, 7 September 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andrew_Hastie_(politician)&oldid=1091560751"