Deletion of Wayne Dropulich

Comment: Clearly passes  as having been declared elected to a Parliament. It is also not strictly accurate to say he was "elected as the result of an error" - the election in which he was elected was voided because of an error, which is not quite the same thing. Received plenty of biographical coverage after the election so there's enough to hang an article on; is one of exactly two people who have ever been elected and then not served any of their term (Heather Hill is the other, and her situation was quite different so Dropulich is literally unique); I also do not see winning an election as in any way compatible with . The claim that he meets the third condition of 1E is laughable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: to Australian_federal_election,_2013#Senate. As the article currently reads, it is primarily about the 2013 election. I would suggest that the article be sent to draft space and substantially rewritten with the focus is on the individual subject. If, as some have suggested, there are sources that exist about the subject, then it would be easier to determine whether the subject meets  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:GNG)

Comment: Satisfies the criteria at . He was elected to the Australian Senate. As noted above, he has also received significant coverage in reliable sources, such as http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/sports-partys-likely-senator-wayne-dropulich-admits-a-lack-of-nonsports-policies-20130909-2tg1k.html this profile piece from ''The Sydney Morning Herald
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL)

Comment: Elected to national office, obviously meets . Elected (and unelected) in a situation unique in Australian history, with the plenty of biographical coverage that comes with winning a national election. As I stated on the talk page, claiming "winning a national election" as an example of  is the single most absurd attempt at stretching that guideline that I have ever seen. Of course he "did something notable" (he won a national election
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN||WP:BLP1E)

Comment: Ugh, I have to say, I hate . I can kind of see the point of it, for example there shouldn't be an article on that guy who hit the CEO of Qantas with a pie despite there being plenty of coverage on him. But from a historical record point of view, I can't stand how the 1-event guidelines are treated as the brightest of bright-line rules, and as the discussion proceeds, usually involves disregarding other circumstances, other notability guidelines and prior consensus. While Dropulich's situation is rather unique, I believe he should be included on the basis of the 'was elected' criterion—and the same should apply to the many do-nothing backbenchers with scant bio information, people found ineligible, people who died before or early into their term, and those WA Legislative Council members who are elected for a month or so to replace someone who resigned to contest the lower house
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: While he isn't super notable, I don't see why he should be excluded any more than say a no-name backbench MP from one of the major parties should be excluded. Ultimately, he received considerable media coverage as a result of being elected to federal Parliament – and then again when he subsequently lost his spot when the results were declared void. He again ran for election at the special election, and there was coverage on him following his failure to gain a seat at that. It's really more than just |one event, and any criticisms on the quality of the article should be disregarded now as I've rewritten it and updated the references
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: normally I am a great supporter of  because I think it should be enforced much more often.  But in this case, I think Dropulich needs to be an exception.  We have a guy who was elected as a Senator, received a ton of press coverage beyond the usual "man bites dog" stuff, and then had it all fall apart, prompting another wave of coverage and interest
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E)

Comment: an elected member of the Australian Senate is notable, despite his short term therein. He passes  with flying colours
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:POLITICIAN)

Comment: This is a very weird case. Usually politicians meet notability guidelines by virtue of their position. I reckon the justification for that being that any politician on the national stage would some sort of coverage that could establish their notability apart for the election victory. In this case, however, the candidate was not notable prior to running, ran and won an election whose result was voided, and then got defeated in the special election. From what I can see, and I've been scraping Google to find something, this guy really has nothing that makes him notable except for winning the election. I disagree with The Drover's Wife that this is an egregious use of . I think it's more a case of  contradicting . If we drop , there is no reason for this guy to have an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP1E||WP:POLITICIAN||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:POLITICIAN)