Deletion of Sarah Hanson-Young (2nd nomination)

Comment: This article is as notable as those for similar Green Party activists Jenny Leong, David Risstrom, John Kaye and Jamie Parker. I believe all of them fail  because they rely on the outcome of a future event to secure their claim to notability. At the same time, all of them have enough genuine supporters to prevent consensus on AfD
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:CRYSTAL)

Comment: Subject of multiple independent reliable sources, as per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTABILITY)

Comment: Quite simple, really. Wikipedia:Notability: "''a topic is notable if it has been the subject of http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20644836-2682,00.html multiple, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20654354-2702,00.html non-trivial, http://www.bordermail.com.au/news/bm/national/495200.html reliable published works, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20658109-5006787,00.html whose sources are independent of the subject itself.''" That's all that we care about. Electability, candidacy, previous success: these are all red herrings. #The primary notability criterion is more than satisfied. —&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: as |Wikipedia is not an election guide, and  provides that mere candidacy for office is not sufficient to demonstrate notability
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BIO)

Comment: notability is not about fame, nor whether one wins or loses an election. Plenty of sources are cited for a decent article to be possible, and that's what  ''is'' intended to assure
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)