Deletion of Stephen Jolly (politician)

Comment: it may pass  on its own. Although local councillors are not notable on their own, they are if they are a significant spokesperson for a political issue and significant gain press coverage. He has been a prominent public figure for socialism and the 'Change the Date' (an Australian Indigenous rights issue) campaign. These have been covered by national newspapers such as The Australian, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation|ABC, and The Age, as well as international media such as the Jacobin (magazine)|Jacobin. However as others have pointed out, there are several other factors such as being a prominent activist and having widespread sourcing that would make it supported by 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:GNG)

Comment: It's true that neither being a smalltown city councillor nor being an unsuccessful election candidate are -passing notability claims, and people are ''not'' automatically deemed to pass GNG in lieu of NPOL just because some local media coverage exists of them in those contexts — but being the leader of a registered ''political party'' at the state level, ''even'' a minor one, most certainly ''can'' be a valid claim of notability if it's well-sourced. The test for the notability of a political party leader is not the subjective majorness or minorness of the party — ''regardless'' of party size, it's a matter of whether or not they have received enough |reliable source ''coverage'' to clear GNG for being a party leader. I'll grant that "party leader" isn't written directly into NPOL, but that's not because it's an inherent NPOL fail in all cases — it's because the question of whether a party leader is notable or not comes down to the quality of the ''sources''. It's not an automatic notability freebie for all party leaders, no, but it's not an automatic notability ''fail'' either — it's contingent on the quality of the ''sourcing'', and ''is'' a valid notability claim if there ''is'' enough sourcing to pass GNG.It's true that a lot more AFC reviewers equivocated on whether to accept or reject this one than usual — I was one of them, and my comment was that too much of the sourcing at the time was sitting on the non-notable aspects of his career but a path to notability existed if the sourcing about his ''political party'' leadership could be beefed up enough. I'm still not completely sold that ''all'' of these sources are what I had in mind, but there ''are'' some sources that are striding in the right direction from where it was the first time I looked at it.But even if he is deemed non-notable when all is said and done, his name should still be retained as a redirect to the party's article rather than simply deleted — but keeping or deleting this isn't a question of whether the party he leads is major or minor, it's a question of whether there's enough ''sourcing'' to get him over GNG ''for'' leading a party or not
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NPOL||WP:RS)