From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2010 May 6
2010 May 8 >

7 May 2010

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Nasty Party ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Nominating on behalf of User:Dwanyewest, who made this edit to DRV talk recently, which I understand to mean a request for deletion review. I am neutral. — S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • Oppose recreation. I don't think it's an attack page, just non-notable; just because there have been a few usages of the term in reliable sources doesn't make it article-worthy. I wouldn't object to a sentence or two in Conservative Party (UK) though. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Restore How and why was this removed? There are hundreds of reliable sources for the usage which has been common in political circles since Theresa May used it in her conference speech. We might have it as a redirect to her article initially but there's scope to expand it as it is a notable and significant political concept which is now extended to other parties. It's commonplace in recent years to observe that Labour has become the 'nasty party', for example. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted - We don't need to fill the project with every idiotic, partisan nickname that political opponents come up with. Dhimmicrats for the Democratic Party and Rethuglicans for the Republican Party get a lot of use too. Tarc ( talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • You seem to misunderstand the topic. The concept and term was coined by a leading member of the party in question. By documenting the matter properly, we will enlighten and inform the ignorant and prejudiced and so fulfil our educational mission. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • I don't misunderstand the non-notability of pet nicknames. Nice try though. Tarc ( talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, I think anyone who understands British politics would agree that this has, of late, been a commonplace term for the Conservative Party. With all due respect for Black Kite's view, I think he's wrong about notability for this title. I think the concern is not about notability or verifiability, but about neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. There are certainly editors who feel that such a title is "inherently POV", which is Wikipedia jargon for any material on Wikipedia that tends to persuade rather than to inform. This is the objection you need to deal with for the deletion to be reversed.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Disco Curtis ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

i am currently creating this page in my user, and i would like to request permission to re-create it in wikipedia's database. thank you. Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 19:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply

  • I assume you mean User:Qotsa37/Disco Curtis? Are there any reliable third-party independent sources giving non-trivial coverage? Or evidence they pass WP:BAND? -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC) reply
    • how's this? Qö₮$@37 ( talk) 02:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
      • One of those is a local festival and is merely their name on a schedule. The warped tour looks more promising however the criteria is a bit more specific than just appearing and the coverage on the tours website is just the bio from the bands myspace page. i.e. it's not independant coverage. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 08:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Since the band doesn't appear to pass our notability guidelines for musical acts, if the article wasc moved to mainspace at this time it would certainly be deleted. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse does not pass our music guidelines, and frankly doesn't even come close. Please do not re-nominate until it passes at least one of the WP:MUSIC criteria, and has an independent reliable source verifying that claim. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted for now. The article as currently written would not be speedy deleted (or it least it shouldn't be), but the evidence of notability would not pass muster at WP:AFD. No reason to re-create in article space until it is at least a plausible "keep" candidate. I would encourage User:Qotsa37 to hold onto the draft and keep adding to it as appropriate, since this is a situation where the subject could break the notability barrier in the future. -- RL0919 ( talk) 20:51, 14 May 2010 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_7&oldid=1141925488"