From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

Portal	John Kaye is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 1, 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

See deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kaye

[edit] NPOV

Deleted: "Kaye increased the Greens vote to over 290,000 (7.3%), but due to less favourable preference flows, he was not elected to join Kerry Nettle and Bob Brown." and "The continued strength of the Greens vote suggests he is likely to become the fourth Greens parliamentarian. " becuase neither of these statements are neutral. Comments? Sam Wilson 07:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is terribly PoV but the latter is mere speculation. The only way it could be saved is by rephrasing it as an extrapolation of the last state election, where 2 Greens MLCs were elected. Which is pretty pointless so you were probably right to delete that sentence.

But that first sentence is not PoV at all. There's nothing PoV about saying that preference flows are favourable when preferences are something everyone wants and needs to get elected. But mentioning Brown is quite irrelevant. I'm going to rephrase it. Nick 14:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. The intent was to show ongoing relevance in the context of the deletion debate. The new wording is better. PS - What will happen to the deletion debate on the other two former candidates Jenny Leong and David Risstrom. I presume that the keep outcome applies to them too. Chris Maltby 07:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)