Talk:Rose Jackson

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review prior discussions if you are considering renomination. Delete, October 23 2005, see discussion. Keep, August 9 2006, see discussion.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). Australia: New South Wales / Politics / Education Low‑importance Rose Jackson 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.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject New South Wales (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Australia (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of New South Wales. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Politics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

The article was subsequently recreated with different content.Blnguyen | rant-line 00:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Current NUS president. Sources: [1], [2], [3]. [4]

-- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 16:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

• Extreme Skepticism about notability. Seems to be a non-notable former student politician... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.218.27 (talk) 01:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I feel sorry for you 0001.Esmehwp 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

0001 has clearly demonstrated that their true agenda - wanting this entry deleted because they don't like the person it's about?

Whether or not you LIKE Rose Jackson, she is last year's president of the NATIONAL Union of Students. She is the daughter of a very popular and well known five-time Walkley Award winning journalist, she IS on Australian television frequently as a political spokesperson for youth, and she clearly is set for a long and prominent involvement in Australian public life.

The article is unbiased, referenced, accurate and relevant, and deserves to stay, even if it hurts 0001's feelings. Puremyth 14:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This justification was added to an old AfD.. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 02:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just searched her name after watching her on TV for the dozenth time, and got to this deletion page! it is stupid for people who are not knowledgable of something to show their ignorance by deleting information. she is THE icon of young labour, Whenever the Australian media is covering politics of the youth or the left she is the person they show also she has been in numerous debates on tv, just tonight she was on the ABC's "difference of opinion" an hour long primetime prestigous debate show with 4 panelists she being one. ABC might not mean anything to nerds in USA but it is similar in stature to BBC and if you don't know what I mean by that then god help WP, she is destined to be one of australia's leaders in the near future (not that I'm particularly happy about that!) and possibly a future PM (thats prime minister) but this just shows how closed minded and ignorant and arrogant you are take a look at yourselves in the mirror, you need to realise your knowledge is very limited, don't delete things you don't know anything about. there should be a full article on her as she is (for better or worse) shaping the entire debate around the future of australian politics. just because something is not mentioned a billion times by geeks on the internet doesn't mean it is not important. seriously think about how arrogant you have just been and don't repeat it in the future, you'll rarely get someone who both understands the significance of some topic that you are ignorant of AND knows how wikipedia works and can stop you from making your mistakes so err (by far) on the side of inclusion as your understanding like everyone else's is limited and your access to information is also limited to what people like yourself choose to make available online.Esmehwp 13:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why such a trivial incident merits a mention in an encylopedia writeup. Cheers. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why it doesn't. Given the overall limited notability of the figure in question - it has got a significant amount of airplay. We're dealing with a person who has only been on television once or twice - if there is going to be an article that accurately details her life, then the most notable (defined by what outside commentators see, not what we see) feature of her actions as a public feature should be listed.

I wholeheartedly reject the 'puerile' appellation as well. Find one bit of the edit that was unencyclopedic and non-factual. Slac speak up! 00:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It may be factual, but I think WP:RECENT and WP:UNDUE applies here. well people still remember this in a month? Michellecrisp (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That, of course, is obviously a judgement call. My perspective is this: if we exclude incidents on this level of notability (minor media appearances, something that gets passed around half a dozen blogs), what is the article going to contain? It will only be one or two sentences. If it is taken as a given that Rose Jackson is notable because of (eg.) her role in Australian Young Labor, I can personally assure you that she will still be known within those circles for the pavlova incident - in much the same way Andrew Landeryou, of about equivalent notability, will be known for a handful of infamous comments at some forum or other. Whether she will within the general community - I doubt she ever was known to begin with. Slac speak up! 00:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well this article should be nominated for deletion. However, it has passed 2 previous attempts at deletion. but I agree there are some notability concerns about Rose. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The whole sentence comes off as a rather snide inclusion into the article. It reeks of someone trying to push their agenda and even discredit Rose Jackson. Why not some text summarizing her positions she took on Q&A rather than have a single incident that has been plucked from the show rather suspiciously? VanushVee (talk) 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's the most prominent portion - it's been reblogged, pressed and discussed. Whether we approve of it being so or not is a value judgement. Slac speak up! 05:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)Reply