Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies


 * 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. Snow close. It is clear that consensus views the content of the page as an attack page that violates at least BLP and NPOV in any Wikipedia namespace. As some of the editors alluded to below, this kind of selective picking and using of information from the vast amount of reliable source material available on Kevin Rudd raises user conduct issues. However, AfD is not the place to resolve those issues. -- Jreferee (talk) 03:05, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for WP:CSD, but I disagree, the content is well based in reliable sources, over a long period of time. It is probably destined to be well-covered in political books. On the other hand, it is a collection of negative coverage and may be considered deleteable as a coatrack for negative commentary, not defensible by mere anticipation of more reputable sources providing a reliable balanced view. I think more comment is needed before deleting. SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Purely negative attack page. While it appears to be highly-referenced, many of the main sources are from publications which have demonstrated a clear bias for some time, or compilation of negative quotes from Kevin Rudd's political enemies (whether in the opposing party or rivals within the ALP). There is a whole section based on a newspaper's report of a psychological assessment by the Liberal Party campaign team! How is that even remotely neutral? --Canley (talk) 04:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Canley (talk) 04:37, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * "There is a whole section based on a newspaper's report of a psychological assessment by the Liberal Party campaign team! How is that even remotely neutral?" It doesn't say it is neutral, it says the assessment was done by the Liberal Party. Mind you, it's probably accurate too, considering they won the election. Beaglepack (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Original research. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 04:41, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Hi, thanks for the message. Everything on the page is referenced, and openly discussed in Australian politic discourse and the Australian print & news media, including the publicly funded news source, the ABC. It's understandable that there might some who want to suppress talk of Kevin Rudd's faults out of bitterness, given that Kevin Rudd just lost the ALP a federal election in Australia 3 days ago. It is a desperate time for those souls, and they have my sympathies. However, I am concerned that the main wiki page about Kevin Rudd is currently missing a large piece of the puzzle that everyone on the ground here in Australia is aware of - Kevin Rudd's controversial personality. If someone overseas read the Kevin Rudd main wiki page, they might be left scratching their heads about the dynamics of Kevin Rudd's political career, and Australian politics over the last few years. I've got the page backed up on my computer in any case for later use. Thank you. Beaglepack (talk) 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Why am I not surprised that your response would be to claim this nonsense is a vital biographical aspect, and any objection is sour grapes over the election loss from biased lefties eager to whitewash their hero's story? Just so you know, if you or another editor created an article on "Tony Abbott misogyny controversies", I would be just as determined that this sort of attack compilation is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia, regardless of political orientation, and should be deleted. --Canley (talk) 05:33, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – Looks can be very deceiving, as this "article" relies on unbalanced, extremely bias analyses and tittle-tattle from Rudd's political enemies within his own party, as well as the opposing party's (Liberal Party) campaign team. A big 'no no'. The article is completely negatively skewed, and reads as an attack page. In breach of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 04:48, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Did the quoted people not make those statements about Rudd? Did Rudd not just take the ALP to it's worse election result in 100 years? I must have missed something. Maybe it's too soon for some people. Beaglepack (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a good long read of: Neutral point of view. — Mel bourne Star ☆ talk 05:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete An attack page in its purest and most terrible form, and using an 'analysis' from the opposing party? Absolutely not allowed here and this article is unrescuable. We wouldn't have this type of page for any candidate, not even if they did a line of purile things.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 04:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK. this is one of the worst I've seen and should be speedily deleted. LibStar (talk) 04:58, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, given others' comments so far, I will agree to deletion. I think there is room for coverage of this stuff, but as it is negative, and as there are many highly biased sources, it needs to be written only with great care.  I suggest the appropriate way forward is to discuss at Talk:Kevin_Rudd what might be justifiably included.  I suggest that this should be done slowly, as event are recent and feelings high.  The selection of suitable sources will be non-trivial.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If you agree to deletion perhaps you might restore the speedy deletion template that you removed? WWGB (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree to deletion on the basis that it is a hopeless spinout with respect to BLP and NPOV, but I do not agree that it is an attack page meeting "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose".  The other purpose is to document an actual real-world occurrence, and I think people stating "a miserable breach of both WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK" are overstating.  Multiple independent (of each other) sources attest to the gist of the article.  I'm not sure how to comment on how it is that all of the many sources are biased, it being awkward but more or less true.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That quote is mine and I think it's accurate. The article serves "primarily to disparage" and the author notes above that it was designed to counter "suppress[ion] ... of Kevin Rudd's faults" and document "Kevin Rudd's controversial personality" (his "personality" is controversial now, rather than his actions?). The entire thing is an exercise in WP:UNDUE. The purpose is not to "document an actual real-world occurrence" - it is to document a series of alleged occurrence s and group them together in an article to draw an WP:OR psychoanalytical conclusion about a person's personality. Stalwart 111  06:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete (and WP:SNOW close) - I don't actually mind that this was brought to AFD. It means there is a fast-built, solid and established consensus to fall back on if rubbish like this gets recreated. The article itself is a miserable breach of both WP:BLP and WP:ATTACK as suggested above. Stalwart 111  05:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and ("I've got the page backed up on my computer in any case for later use.") salt for good measure. Stalwart 111  06:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, SALT, and maybe block the article creator. Pure WP:BLP violation, created just to attack another human being, and is utterly disgraceful. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. This kind of thing is totally contrary to what we should be about and is by its very definition POV. Frickeg (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Inherent bias contrary to WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. The subject's personality and political style is a reasonable topic as it is covered in detail in sources such this but such material should be presented in a balanced and proportionate way in the main article about him — his strengths as well as his weaknesses. Warden (talk) 11:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete This article violates every policy I can think of. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, SALT, and snowball close - Major WP:BLP and WP:NPOV violation. hmssolent \You rang? ship's log 13:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Snow delete - WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV, WP:BLP, the list goes on. Ansh666 22:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt- Attack page. We would not allow an article called, say, Tony Abbott's regressive douchenozzlery for good reason, so this one is out. Reyk  YO!  02:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as soon as possible! A one-sided, POV-ridden article from the title through to its content. Any relevant part could be included in Rudd's article, if presented neutrally and with consideration to relevant weight. Wikipeterproject (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy/WP:SNOW delete Massively non-neutral and a serious violation of WP:BLP. I agree that the closing admin should also consider whether Beaglepack's editing rights should be suspended given their apparent cluelessness about WP:BLP. The issues around Rudd's conduct are a significant aspect of his political career, but need to be presented in context and be referenced to high quality sources. This article is largely dependent on claims by Rudd's political opponents. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Unless we also want Tony Abbott behavioural and personality related controversies! PantherLeapord&#124;My talk page&#124;My CSD log 02:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SNOWCSD:G10 Technical 13 (talk) 02:49, 14 September 2013 (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.