Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Contemporary Australian Left


 * 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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 04:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

The Contemporary Australian Left
NPOV, and certainly WP:NOR as stated by author on talk page. Delete. RasputinAXP talk contribs 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not NPOV and violates WP:NOR policy. Arviragus 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is a classification of people/things under a thought process of the author, which would be inherently POV, although I think he/she makes fair statements on the people of the list, although the list may not necessarily contain the most notable/appropriate entries - perhaps some people may be more notable and meet those criteria, but are not listed.Blnguyen 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly not NPOV. And appart from anything else, it is poorly researched with some bizare entries and some notable ommissions. I don't think that a page of this kind could ever work in an encyclopedia. Maybe in 50 years time a list could be included, but the fact that it is a "modern" list makes it un-encyclopedic. --Mjspe1 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete contents are NPOV and OR, and the topic means they will stay that way for quite some time. JPD (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sprawling, unnecessary POV mess that would be near-impossible to salvage. Ambi 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. *\o/* Dustimagic *\o/* 00:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As soon as I saw the title I thought "How much more POV can you get?" --Canley 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research, not NPOV. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 05:23Z 
 * Delete per nom. Werdna648T/C\@ 09:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Roisterer 10:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Longhair 06:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) (UTC)


 * Delete Sarah Ewart 04:55, 14 January 2006 (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.