This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 June 5. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus here is that the page fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG. T. Canens ( talk) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A userpage full of divisive political commentary. If you look at the page history, you'll see BLP violations scattered throughout. The whole page is in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTBLOG. I brought this up with the user here, and although xe removed the more egregious BLP issues from the current revision, xe is unwilling to delete. My concerns lie both in the current revision and in past revisions; I think the whole thing would be better off deleted and then Timeshift can feel free to recreate a more appropriate userpage. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2."Bahahahahaha! But I still think Mr Downer said it best... both major parties took their plans to the election, and Labor won the election, so Labor should be able to govern with what they have received a mandate to do - so move out of the way and let the damn government get on with the job of governing! I realise this is a foreign idea to the SA Libs who have an annually rotating leadership especially when in government, but they really do need to stop concentrating on themselves and finally start concentrating on South Australia. Fight against the SA Libs trademark crippling conservatism and allow progress!!"
3. A BLP violation that remains on the page:It's rather disappointing that Liberals continue to propagate lies. Are they that desperate in their attempts to win government that the truth flies out the back door? Well, I then take it as a compliment :)
The extensive political commentary falls afoul of WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits: " Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)."Let's just point out the hypocrisy for posterity. If any other major party leader stood in front of a reporter shaking in white-hot anger, speechless despite being repeatedly prompted for a reply to a tricky question, for TWENTY-TWO SECONDS, their career would be over. And it only came about because [redacted name] lacks the political and diplomatic nouse to realise that you don't swear generally, let alone in the above scenario, if you don't want to make a headline out of yourself. Gaffe-a-second [redacted name] is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party and politics generally, Menzies would be rolling in his grave. Sure [redacted name] can inflict damage on anything and everything around him regardless of the circumstances, but the level of intellectual dumbing and dishonesty and disservice [redacted name] does to the polity and democracy as a whole is not by any means desirable. How can any self-respecting Liberal support him...?
Because the userpage's history has a wealth of BLP violations, because the page continues to have BLP violations, because Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a blog, and because the page violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, this page should be deleted. Cunard ( talk) 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2011 June 5. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result of the discussion was delete. The general consensus here is that the page fails WP:SOAP and WP:NOTBLOG. T. Canens ( talk) 04:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
A userpage full of divisive political commentary. If you look at the page history, you'll see BLP violations scattered throughout. The whole page is in violation of WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTBLOG. I brought this up with the user here, and although xe removed the more egregious BLP issues from the current revision, xe is unwilling to delete. My concerns lie both in the current revision and in past revisions; I think the whole thing would be better off deleted and then Timeshift can feel free to recreate a more appropriate userpage. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
2."Bahahahahaha! But I still think Mr Downer said it best... both major parties took their plans to the election, and Labor won the election, so Labor should be able to govern with what they have received a mandate to do - so move out of the way and let the damn government get on with the job of governing! I realise this is a foreign idea to the SA Libs who have an annually rotating leadership especially when in government, but they really do need to stop concentrating on themselves and finally start concentrating on South Australia. Fight against the SA Libs trademark crippling conservatism and allow progress!!"
3. A BLP violation that remains on the page:It's rather disappointing that Liberals continue to propagate lies. Are they that desperate in their attempts to win government that the truth flies out the back door? Well, I then take it as a compliment :)
The extensive political commentary falls afoul of WP:UP#POLEMIC, which prohibits: " Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive)."Let's just point out the hypocrisy for posterity. If any other major party leader stood in front of a reporter shaking in white-hot anger, speechless despite being repeatedly prompted for a reply to a tricky question, for TWENTY-TWO SECONDS, their career would be over. And it only came about because [redacted name] lacks the political and diplomatic nouse to realise that you don't swear generally, let alone in the above scenario, if you don't want to make a headline out of yourself. Gaffe-a-second [redacted name] is an embarrassment to the Liberal Party and politics generally, Menzies would be rolling in his grave. Sure [redacted name] can inflict damage on anything and everything around him regardless of the circumstances, but the level of intellectual dumbing and dishonesty and disservice [redacted name] does to the polity and democracy as a whole is not by any means desirable. How can any self-respecting Liberal support him...?
Because the userpage's history has a wealth of BLP violations, because the page continues to have BLP violations, because Wikipedia is neither a soapbox nor a blog, and because the page violates WP:UP#POLEMIC, this page should be deleted. Cunard ( talk) 09:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)