Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hajnal Ban (2nd nomination)

Hajnal Ban

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was nominated and kept back in May, and I was one of the keep voters at the time. It was kept on the basis that, between her book about her cosmetic surgery, and her then-certain-of-election political candidacy, she was notable. In the meantime, she has become enmired in messy legal trouble, and is no longer a candidate. Her article is now being fought over by her supporters and opponents, and there's material that patently violates BLP being added and removed every second day. As such, I think this article really should go. Rebecca (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep & Protect - I came in the other day while doing vandal patrol and spent some time cleaning up sections. Since then it has only had one addition - I think something like pending changes or some other form of protection would be more suitable. Her book, I think, makes her notable - along with the controversy. It's worth pointing out that while user PropertySouth is clearly a Ban supporter (from his/her edits & comments) they have done a pretty good job at not bringing too much (positive) bias into the article & has been reasonable in his/her cleaning up. I know others are keeping an eye on the article so I don't think it is an issue --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 07:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP & Protect. 1) In May 2009 Hajnal Ban was not certain to be a candidate for election as the new federal seat of Wright was not created. In fact her original page just mentioned the fact that she was considering her political future. Hajnal Ban may in fact run for politics again now that her name has been cleared. 2) Hajnal Ban has continued to contribute to broader Australian political debate and has added to it, with numerous media mentions. 3) The fact she has been involved in a legal stoush (now over) is further evidence she is notable, as it has gained widespread media coverage to this day. 4) Her cosmetic surgery, continued interest in her and her book still make her notable. 5) her mere marriage to Black was widley covered by the media. 6) As a route to consensuses may I suggest that edits be blocked, as it is obvious people are trying to vandalise this entry. I ask that this debate remain focused on facts and show dignity to the person. I will ask that personal attacks be deleted.Propertysouth (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (there is plenty of reliable secondary sources) and vandalism of an article isn't a valid argument for deletion. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many of these sources aren't terribly reliable (for one, there's several press releases in there), and it's not a matter of vandalism - it's a matter of the article being a major BLP concern in a way that it wasn't before this legal mess broke. Rebecca (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Per WP:BLP#Deletion the AFDing it seems pre-emptive. The only BLP concerns seem to be over Ban's removal as candidate due to a controversy. The material seems to be pretty well (and fairly) dealt with in the article and there is no actual dispute over that other than some suspect edits by users to add in previously rejected text. On the other hand if consensus is that the section violates WP:BLP surely the sensible course is simply to remove it (as suggested by BLP policy) . WP:BLP says 'Summary deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to a version of an acceptable standard. - I'd suggest these issues are addressed a) by a discussion of the content, b) a rewrite of the section based on that and c) protection of the page if necessary to prevent re-addition. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- there is only one press release, from Russell Lutton which was inserted to prove that he is a pro-pokies Councillor. All other sources are news papers and various other local and national media as well as media outlets from around the world. No press releases of Ban's are included in sources. In fact sources are amoung the most comprehensive of many articles. Also quoted are various books. Legal mess is now over, so as mentioned way to address this concern would be protection.Propertysouth (talk) 10:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]