Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of Tony Blair (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Criticism of Tony Blair
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is essentially a WP:POVFORK involving a living person. Our WP:BLP policy expressly puts restrictions on Criticism sections and discourages giving them "disproportionate space" this article does just that and violates the spirit of BLP. Criticisms involving policies need to be put in the appropriate articles on the policies themselves not in WP:COATRACK article. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, on reflection, I agree with every word of that. This is an article entirely devoted to criticism of a living person.  Delete.— S Marshall  T/C 22:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, the content of this article would be acceptable if it was merged and included within Tony Blair for a more accurate context?  Deterence  Talk 03:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not automatically, no. You'd need a consensus at Talk:Tony Blair that its inclusion was balanced and proportionate before adding material from this article to that one.  I remain of the opinion that this material should be deleted from the mainspace on closure of this AfD, but if Deterence wishes to seek consensus to merge it to Tony Blair then it should be incubated or userfied, so as to make this possible.  Deterence, if you do merge anything from this article after it's been deleted from the mainspace, you should maintain attribution by including a list of the original authors in an edit summary or on the target article's talk page.— S Marshall  T/C 08:40, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought the rhetorical nature of my question was fairly obvious. Regardless, as the Tony Blair article has a section on Titles and Honours, there should be no issue with balancing such praise with some notable critical commentary, per WP:NPOV. Otherwise, the Tony Blair article begins to resemble a shrine, which is not what the cautionary principles of WP:BLP intend.  Deterence  Talk 11:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Inherently one-sided and so contrary to core policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per Articles for deletion/Criticism of Vladimir Putin (3rd nomination). Tijfo098 (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NPOV. I think there is a consensus around this area, that "criticism of..." articles are almost always magnets for blind POV, and naturally create a hostile and unduly negative perspective on a topic. If enough of these articles are deleted, it would be worth adding this to a guideline if not a policy. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a fan of Mr Blair, but this article is WP:UNDUE and a WP:NPOV violation. Nanobear (talk) 01:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Violation of WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, & WP:POVFORK.--JayJasper (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep While I am not a huge fan of "criticism of..." articles, I am even less fond of the censorship of any criticism of political figures. The article is well written, very well referenced and is clearly notable. Indeed, this is precisely the sort of critical information that someone researching Tony Blair would be interested in. WP:BLP does not require us to sanitise all biographical articles to the point where living persons are portrayed as Saints.  Deterence  Talk 03:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - anything that is not already duplicated in his BLP should be discussed for possible integration in related sections of his biography. Specific criticism sections are to be avoided and criticism articles are even more in violation of that BLP statement. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.