Deletion of David Risstrom (2nd nomination)

Comment: Firstly, he ''was'' a city councillor in a "global city" for the purposes of : the argument that that guideline doesn't apply to Australian cities is nonsense. Secondly, I almost always vote delete on unelected political candidates and have for years, but this is not a routine case - his particular Senate defeat was in uniquely controversial circumstances, is still frequently referenced fifteen years later, and has the hundreds of sources you'd expect from that. As I said in the initial discussion, this was always going to come down to whether people judged notability on the ''actual'' sources available, or on the sources people imagined existed having heard the mere fact of him having been an unsuccessful political candidate. We don't judge notability at AfD by the sources in the article, we judge it by the sources that exist, and this just needs somebody to do a thorough rewrite from the 500+ available articles about him. He was always notable, as reflected in the last AfD: he's only being nominated this time because of the assumption of non-notability for political candidates regardless of  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:POLOUTCOMES||WP:GNG||WP:POLOUTCOMES)

Comment: per Frickeg. Candidates who have lost an election are not seen as meeting  and local municipal officials are generally expected to receive national or international profiles in independent sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)