Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015


 * 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 WP:SNOW and a well argued need to remove this in a timely fashion. Guy (Help!) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Policies of parties and independent candidates for New South Wales state election, 2015

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is an unencyclopedic trainwreck, trying to do its own mashed-together comparison of party policies copy-pasted in places from the party's website. It's something far better handled by linking to the party's website itself, it's not a topic there's any precedent of, and it needs to go. The Drover&#39;s Wife (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I've cut heaps of close paraphrasing and plagiarism from this article, and there is still a lot more to go. After all of the copyvio content is removed it's going to be so bare-bones and erratic in coverage to be pointless. Beyond that, there has already been a discussion about this style of content presentation, where the clear consensus was against tables and for prose. As it stands this article is not encyclopaedic, and I don't see it getting closer any time soon; to be honest I simply don't see it ever being encyclopaedic, the main electoral issues should be covered in the main election article. ColonialGrid (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete – Appears to this editor's eye to be an unencyclopedic mess. --IJBall (talk) 17:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Riddled with copyvios and a hugely excessive WP:FORK, created against prior consensus. Frickeg (talk) 19:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - what a mess. Just a long list of WP:OR nonsense with exactly the sort of massive holes, gaps and guesses you'd expect from such an effort.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 02:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * delete article is a mess but really reason is the blatant selective presentation and comparison of political parties. LibStar (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Although it may appear bias for/against parties, a lot of that may be due to my removal of close paraphrased/plagiarised content which has probably left the article lopsided or lumpy in parts. It was still a mess before I went at it though, and there is still more dubious content to be removed. ColonialGrid (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * delete prior to being nominated I had a read and it did seem like an advert for the Greens. No real value in this case. Screech1616 (talk) 11:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, for all the reasons above, but I also feel that it may start to WP:SNOW soon. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC).
 * as the election is being held this Saturday, I reckon a snow closure would be a really good idea; do we really want this up during a period where the article will be getting the most views? ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I am answering the following:


 * Argument 1: (by The Drover's Wife) “it's not a topic there's any precedent of”, if that were true, that wouldn’t be a reason for deletion in itself.


 * Argument 2: (by various) “close paraphrasing and plagiarism”, well, that is corrected by editing the article, the article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that. I’ll go through the article again to check that but I think that the close paraphrasing criticism is being applied to harshly because as I read in some wikipedia policy, close paraphrasing would be allow when there are only a few ways in which something can be said without changing the meaning, but I will go through the article again to review everything again.


 * Argument 2.1: (by ColonialGrid) “After all of the copyvio content is removed it's going to be so bare-bones and erratic in coverage to be pointless.”, that doesn’t make sense because the text that has that problem can be rewritten in a different way, it doesn’t need to be “removed”, it can be just “rewritten”. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.


 * Argument 3: (by St★lwart) “Just a long list of WP:OR”, if you think that something is original research, delete that. it’s not original research since it is based on 133 references, what the article says is based on the references. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.


 * Argument 4: (by Screech1616) “ it did seem like an advert for the Greens”, please explain why, if that were to happen that can be corrected. What is an advert? An advert would be an intentional effort to present the Greens above what sources say. I am not doing that, what I am saying about the Greens is based on the sources. Be free to change what you think is an advert. The article doesn’t NEED to be deleted to correct that.
 * A Text Search of the article counts the term "Greens" a whopping 44 times, "Liberal" 17 times, "Australian Labor" & "Country Labor" 13 times each - not bad for a minor party! Screech1616 (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Argument 5: (by Lankiveil) “I also feel that it may start to WP:SNOW”, are you trying to say that it is not winnable ? The fact that various persons have said “Delete” doesn’t mean it’s not winnable, do you see? Because I am responding to the arguments and I think I am right. This is not about the number of people, it’s about the arguments. These kinds of things that are connected to politics are delicate and there are many interests so that information is presented in only certain ways and some persons are interested in that, so the fact that there are not persons here saying “Keep” doesn’t mean that there would not be many persons that want this article to be kept.


 * Argument 6, 7, … : There are more arguments that people have said here, please let me a little more time to respond to them (At this moment I don’t more time to write more, not right now). I am trying to be precise and organised with the arguments so all the issues being discussed will be dealt with. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think (as I have all along) that this format is encyclopaedic - don't cherry pick my comments, read them in their entirety. And the question is who will do this work? The only person willing to do it could be you, but after you have had copyvio concerns pointed out numerous times you persist including them; I am rapidly loosing faith in your ability to constructively contribute to this project in a way that respects Wikipedia's policies and the community's consensus. ColonialGrid (talk) 14:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You know, there's something right that you are saying: It's only ME that is willing to do this, you all guys are opposed to it and seem to think along the lines: "stop it, don't do it, the way things happen now in NSW is good enough for us".


 * Do you guys live in Sydney? Have you asked people why they are going to vote for a particular party? Many say that is because they have always voted for the same party all their lives. That means that the major parties have it easy because they have the votes with certainty, no need to make any effort to win the votes of the people. So this effort that I am doing would help people with information about what the parties promise. The information will not be 100% complete and perfectly balanced as it's only me that is doing it but at least it's SOME information and that is better than what we have now.


 * Look what happened in Brisbane:
 * http://candobetter.net/node/1159
 * "Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections"
 * "Brisbane's local ABC radio station 612 ... refused any air time to local independent candidates. Instead, virtually all the available time was given over to candidates from the governing Labor Party or the Opposition Liberal National Party, who even according to the ABC's own listeners, provided little useful information."
 * "Brisbane's local ABC radio station 612 ... refused any air time to local independent candidates. Instead, virtually all the available time was given over to candidates from the governing Labor Party or the Opposition Liberal National Party, who even according to the ABC's own listeners, provided little useful information."


 * "It was incumbent on the taxpayer-funded ABC to encourage any independent candidate who overcame Anna Bligh's engineered time constraints and had information ready for the voting public despite often limited campaign budgets. Instead, one ABC presenter effectively ridiculed an independent candidate before her audiences on one occasion, when, on Friday 20 March, the day before the elections, a morning presenter told listeners of an independent candidate who had only managed to release his policy statement the previous day. Then she remarked: "They're leaving their pitch until a little late, aren't they?" No useful information was given to the audience about that candidate."


 * This would not only be important to people before the election but also after it so people can know if the winners of the election are following their election promises.


 * You know what consequence this will have? that wikipedia will cease to be relevant, newspapers are no longer relevant as are so biased, and now wikipedia is controlled by people that want that information is presented in the way that the two main parties want, not only about this topic but also on the article of the election in which you can only display Labor and the liberals in the infographic and that the election is presented as a fight only between labor and the coalition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:New_South_Wales_state_election,_2015). So people will realise that and see that wikipedia is biased. Don't think people will not notice. Abcdudtc (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Move to close - the above "answers" don't actually address anything and can be boiled down to, "despite a lack of experience and understanding of policy, I think what I'm doing is right so no number of deletion opinions validate deletion". Nobody can argue with that because it's nonsense. This is obviously a Green-tinged effort, as demonstrated by the passing Greens one-liners given weight as "policy" and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades. Delete and salt well before polling day (Saturday).  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * "... and large gaps for major party policies where such policies have been in place for decades"
 * But the major parties don't advertise them on their websites, look, on corruption or electoral reform, what Labor and the Liberals say?
 * I can't find anything about that on their websites:
 * http://act.nswlabor.org.au/policy
 * http://nsw.liberal.org.au/ourplanfornsw/ Abcdudtc (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * One of those parties is in government - government policy is the government's policy. The other was in Government before that. But there is no requirement for either party to release an electoral reform policy just because the Greens have. The Greens have also tried to ban BBQs at polling booths to placate vegetarians (who otherwise shop in regular grocery stores with delis and butchers). It is ridiculous to suggest the major parties should therefore have polling day BBQ policies. This is just a dumb attempt to shill for the Greens.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As there is a clear consensus to delete this page, but it has not yet been done and the election is being held tomorrow, I have made the page a redirect temporarily until after the election (or possibly in perpetuity). ColonialGrid (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2015 (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.