Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Rishworth

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 no consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Rishworth[edit]

Candidate in the 2006 South Australian election - lost badly (33% to 67%) of vote in a seat which she had no chance of winning. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:10, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep because being a public candidate in a public election gives this person notability, there is press about this, and a historical record of the election and of the candidates, this is something that is valuable to keep, even if it is only a stub, and who knows, maybe the person gets back in politics later Pernambuco 03:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Who knows what will happen; wait and see if she does anything else before deletion  Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs   03:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That isn't how it works. Notability needs to be established first, then the article comes. Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep That may be the case, but a) she brought the ALP ahead on primaries to get them on to the 2PP vote, and b) she's been preselected by the ALP to contest the Liberal's most marginal seat in the country for the federal election later on this year. I don't see a reason (yet) for deletion. Also if you remove it, it makes a link on the SA 2006 election page red :P Timeshift 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete WP:N Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, If they become notable then they will be. Jeepday 04:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete just another unsuccessful candidate. Pete.Hurd 04:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above. If she becomes notable, she can be easily re-added. superapathyman 04:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What is the point of deleting an article for six months until the federal election is held? This isn't playing with a crystal ball, it's accepting the reality of this woman being a (reasonably) high-profile figure within the South Australian ALP: she was the Young Labor President of 2000, after all. michael talk 05:03, 31

January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. And with Kingston being Lib by less than 0.1 percent, somehow I dont think Mr Richardson will be holding that seat for too much longer. All the pollsters are predicting all marginal SA Lib seats will fall to Labor at the next election. Timeshift 07:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above MiracleMat 05:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Failed political candidates are not inherently notable. No other assertion of notability Resolute 06:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - uncharacteristically, I'm leaning toward delete in a heavy debate. I'm sorry, just being in a race is not enough of note: all ghits are just quick media mentions about her being in the race: [1]. Part Deux 07:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Over thirty media articles mention Amanda between now and February 2000, a seven-year period. Of these, a number make mention of her position as the National Young Labor President and an organiser with the SDA union. "Newly elected National Australian Young Labor president Amanda Rishworth said the Liberal party had failed...", "Another woman at the breakfast meeting, Shop Distributive and Allied Employees union organiser Amanda Rishworth, said...", "Ms Rishworth will attempt to follow in the footsteps of young Adelaide MP Kate Ellis (ALP), who won her seat at the 2004 Federal Election.", etc. michael talk 08:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know enough about Australian politics to get involved in this one, but there are failed political candidates with their own Wikipedia entries which would seem to set precedent. For example Raj Bhakta, who recently tanked in the 2006 race for my local district. He stood no chance at winning (good riddance), but still has his own developed, well-sourced article. Krimpet 09:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou very much for the info, it does indeed set a precedent. Timeshift 09:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bhakta was a candidate for a federal legislature; Rishworth was a candidate for a state legislature (Krimpet, your equivalent would be the Pennsylvania House of Representatives). That's a substantial difference, so I doubt there's much precedential value in the Bhakta article. -- Jonel | Speak 05:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's something I didn't really consider, and looking at all the red links in Pennsylvania House of Representatives for elected officials, I'm going to have to lean towards Delete abstain on this one. Krimpet 05:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Rishworth is a current candidate in a federal (as with the Bhakta article), not state race (though she previously contested a state seat), and stands, unlike Bhakta, a very strong chance of winning. If we're keeping American articles on candidates who didn't stand a chance in hell, and deleting Australian articles on candidates who are very much favoured to win, then this is one hell of a double standard. Rebecca 06:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think we need more Australian perspectives on this, I don't think it's appropriate for people overseas to give their approval or rejection (my opinion) on a matter such as this... it really needs the opinions of people familiar with Australian elections. Timeshift 06:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm abstaining again... I'll admit I shouldn't have trusted one biased proponent to explain a foreign election to me, I failed to realize she was running again for a federal election, which is much more valid criteria for a keep. Krimpet 11:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to the comment about failed candidacies in long-shot elections. Bhakta was a failed candidate in a federal election, which in and of itself made him notable. Rishworth's failed candidacy was for a state election; Krimpet and Timshift9's comments indicated they felt there was precedential value in a comparison between those two failed candidacies, which there really isn't. That both Bhakta (reality TV contestant) and Rishworth (current candidacy, youth leadership positions) have other claims to notability was beside the point of the comments. Personally, I think major-party candidates for state legislatures (in whatever country) are notable enough for articles. Clearly, that position is not in vogue; I've written enough subsequently deleted articles to realize that. -- Jonel | Speak 13:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rishworth has been preselected for the most marginal of 150 seats in the upcoming 2007 election. The Liberals won on a particularly strong 52.8% of the two party preferred vote at the 2004 election, so there is a strong chance that Rishworth will take it at the next election even if the polling showing the ALP ahead doesn't hold out - so she'll either be a successful or non-successful federal candidate. Not to mention she was president of Young ALP etc. Timeshift 14:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the electoral district article. This is one way to improve the Electoral District articles, which, apart from this sort of thing, will never be more than stubs describing who is the member and where the electorate is. JROBBO 10:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yet another losing election candidate. MER-C 10:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure of the relevance of if whe won or lost the previous election, but as the article states, she is up for election again in 07, making her still a current candidate and notable.Mystache 15:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know Australian politics well enough to infer importance properly, but this sounds like a keeper to me. TonyTheTiger 20:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context I would regard getting one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. Some of the objections seem to be based on her politics, or speculation about her subsequent career. Perhaps none of them are relevant to the proper concerns of this AfD. DGG 02:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my comments about Peter Gandolfi.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 07:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - she's won no office, held no positions of significance, and made no more impact on the world than any other of the dozen failed candidates at each South Australian election. Delete the article and someone can write one of substance IFF she wins in Kingston 2007. As per Blnguyen, I can fork out $200 and be a candidate or get less than 100 people at my local labour branch to endorse me and I'm as notable. Being up for election is not significant. Only ONE recent news article mentioning her and she is not the subject - It's all about her parties leader with her mentioned deep deep in the text.Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Name yields nearly 1500 ghits[2]. Mystache 18:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not quite. using quotes around the name, removing wikipedia and restricting to Australian sites to avoid all of the other people in the world with the same name yeilds 42 which is hardly impressive. - Peripitus (Talk) 06:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair\talk 06:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed Labor candidate. Has not done anything notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If she is elected in the Fed Election then we can try again.I elliot 10:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failed candidate, and not an automatic winner in the Federal election either. Come back when you've been elected. Lankiveil 02:32, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per first reason listed on this debate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mathmo (talk • contribs) 16:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Rishworth would not have been notable based on her previous unsuccessful run for state office, but she is notable for this one. Kingston is one of the seats most likely to change hands at the next election, and as such her name is repeatedly popping up in the newspapers, and will continue to do so over the next year. An article on Rishworth is good background for our coverage of what will be a vital race in this federal election. Rebecca 03:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have to disagree with you there Rebecca. There is no interest in her except she's a candidate in a marginal seat....along with all of the other marginal seats. Tony Zappia is running for the same sort of seat but is independantly notable. Noone in the world seems to care about her except us, beyond X is a candidate for Y in the next Z and we're not a primary source. Coverage of the election is more for wikinews than wikipedia. Should not be an article without reliable references which there are not even after this huge debate. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How are there not reliable references? Just about very polling organisation in the country has been looking at Kingston in the last fortnight, and Rishworth appears in just about all the reporting on those polls. It is a patent double standard to keep a whole bunch of American federal candidates who never stood any chance, and to delete an Australian one in one of the most crucial races in the country. Rebecca 12:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn't state that as I meant. There are not reliable sources as to her notability just reliable sources that she's a candidate. The seat and related contest is clearly notable but the two references in the article in essence say she's a candidate and nothing more - Peripitus (Talk) 07:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, consensus in numerous AfD debates is that losing in an election is not a notable act. As such, this article that offers no other claim to notability, must go. Nuttah68 12:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She's not notable for losing an election. She's notable for being in a current, ongoing race which is receiving quite a lot of attention. Are people even reading the article before voting? Rebecca 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are people forgetting the fact that she's not notable just for that, things like the fact she was Young Labor president? And an organiser for the Shop Distributive Allied Employees Assoc. union, and she's also a psychologist. As was already said, it seems to be well established elsewhere that major party candidates in a election for the legislative body are notable whether they win or lose. The doubts come in when the candidate is not from a major party. In any context, one-third of the vote as substantial--at 5% or so it might be different. The fact she also brought Labor ahead of the Liberals candidate to face them on the two party preferred vote as opposed to the Liberals in 2002, and also the fact she's been preselected in the country's most marginal of 150 lower house seats, Kingston at less than 0.1 percent, where a poll was done a week ago by The Advertiser newspaper in Adelaide of 550 electors in Kingston, with Labor on 56 percent of the 2PP. This is not some fly-by-night person. An article from 2001 shows that. This article should not be deleted given other examples of failed candidates given as examples here, especially when she's not a failed candidate yet. Timeshift 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable election loser. Soltak | Talk 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For gods sake, the article is not about an election loser. It's about a current candidate. Can people at least make clear that they've read the damned article before voting? Rebecca 00:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable, crystal ball. Although she stands a reasonable chance of winning the seat, I would give the same odds to Sarah Hanson-Young, who was deleted and protected after the same debate. Her chances of winning the seat are irrelevant to the debate. I sympathise with Rebecca, but the WP consensus seems to be that she does not deserve an article until she actually wins the seat. 203.20.192.55 07:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 203.20.192.55. Having key roles in two apparently-NN organisations doesn't confer additional notability. Flyingtoaster1337 07:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I would agree with the nomination that her participation in the SA election does not warrant an article, together with her involvement in an important contest in the upcoming federal election, and other positions held, she seems notable enough. JPD (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2007 (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/Amanda_Rishworth&oldid=1137557960"