Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gunnerment


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Gunnerment

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not notable, The only reliable source used don't even state "The Gunnerment" and it's meanings and 3 sources used are blogs (IE: peoples opinions/POV) which are not reliable sources. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.   —Bidgee (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This page should not be deleted as it is a genuine explanation of a term in common use within Tasmania that is of great significance in the current political landscape but probably not understood by those living in other states and countries. It shall also have future historical significance as the term is deeply interwoven in the turbulent political events and scandals of recent times. If items are to be deleted on the basis that they don't reflect well on a particular entity or entities then I expect to see the bulk of historical entries deleted from Wikipedia and mass burning of books in the streets. Maybe it should be moved from the encyclopedia to the dictionary section but the entry deserves to remain available for public viewing.

The use of blogs as sources is legitimate in this case as they substantiate the claim that the term "The Gunnerment" is in common use within the Tasmanian community. Many hundreds of extra blogs could have been added as sources for this purpose but it was decided to keep to a representative few rather than fill a full page with references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 11:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Blogs are not reliable sources(WP:SPS). Those comments are made by people with a POV and the term "The Gunnerment" isn't notable nor is it "historic". Bidgee (talk) 11:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If a tree falls and there is nobody to see it, the tree has still fallen. Facts remain facts whether or not there is media to cover them. The small size of Tasmania's population and its limited media is not a reason to deny a known truth. Sure, there won't always be a "reliable source' to back things up because they're not always there and their resources are limited.  As for the POV argument, much of political history is about points of view.  It's ludicrous to exclude an article that reports on points of  view for this reason.  The use of blogs as references is justified as they demonstrate that a particular point of view is common within the Tasmanian community today.

I truly hope Wikipedia isn't to become totally Americanised with only issues of importance to people of that part of the world are to be regarded as worthy of recording. Recent events in Tasmania will have great significance for that state's history as well as being relevant to those outsiders wishing to understand the situation as it now stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 11:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is clearly POV-pushing (Another Essay isWP:POVPUSH) such as this
 * "With the state of Tasmania apparently being either run by Gunns or for the benefit of Gunns, disaffected Tasmanians refer to their parliament as "The Gunnerment"[Blog source 1][Blog source 2][Blog source 3]."
 * This article and the editor's contributions to the article fails neutral point of view policy. Bidgee (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggestion Internet websites are not the only source of citations, can you cite perhaps a local newspaper using the term? That may be enough to satisfy the deletionists.... but don't cite quote me on that :) --UltraMagnus (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. I am Tasmanian, follow the Tasmanian media, including the comments on the Mercury website, and have never once heard the term "Gunnerment".  I have heard "Gunnsmania" used but even that is not notable enough for an article.  "Gunnerment" is a neologism and  is just using Wikipedia to make it popular in order to push his/her political agenda.  I suggest  reads Wikipedia's neutralily and Conflict of interest policies. -- Chuq (talk) 12:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Save I can only suggest that Chuq is not a real Tasmanian, is someone in the employment of the Tasmanian government's or Gunns Ltd's media offices or is someone pitifully unaware of the public debate raging around him/her. I too am Tasmanian and recognise the term as being commonly used within a significant portion of the Tasmanian community. Extra sources have been quoted that support the usage of the term Gunnerment. I guess that at least one of these will also be challenged on the basis that it's merely point of view, even though published in a major British newspaper. It raises the question of when something is merely point of view and when it's worthy of recording. An ordinary person is no doubt just expressing a point of view. What though of a noted international author who writes an article which is subsequently published? How does this person differ from a journalist or an editor, and how do politicians and aspiring politicians fit into the mix? Somehow their reported statements always seem to qualify and we'll doubtless read in the history books as to how Barrack Obama's comments on a pig with lipstick cost him / nearly cost him the 2008 election. The strength in Wikipedia should be its ability to reach out and include genuine material that is not already being thrust upon us by the powers that be. Chuq's ignorance of the term or feigned denial of it are no reason to support deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a reminder that you should assume good faith and be civil to other editors even if they don't support your view. Telegraph (UK) source states that "Tasmanians joke that their government is the "Gunnerment"." doesn't even state what they based on such claims (Since no other media outlets even stated it) on and it seems that the article is one sided and doesn't state who was the Author. Whats Barrack Obama got to do with this article and deletion? Bidgee (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hilarious. I can only assume that you didn't even read the links that I posted.  It is possible to have an opinion, and also make an impartial decision on an article based on its neutrality (or in this part, lack of it).  Your paranoia only serves to discredit you further.  By the way, I have looked at all the comments attached to Gunns/forestry related articles on the Mercury website,    116 comments in all, and not a single mention of the term 'Gunnerment'.  And no, you posting a comment on the next one will not automatically qualify it for an article.  Oh and no, I don't work for the government, or Gunns, or in the media in any way. -- Chuq (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Barack Obama reference follows on from the query about whose opinion qualifies as reportable. One politician is worth many thousands of ordinary people no doubt, particularly if he's American presidential hopeful (He's no doubt more reportable than tens of thousands). I suggest you actually read the references before criticising them. One is clearly attributable to the author Richard Flanagan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 15:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Barack Obama has nothing to do with this article nor this deletion. His "pig lipstick" quote is totally different to this so called "Gunnerment" joke and he also said it in front of not just the people who attendant and the US press but the World press. Bidgee (talk) 16:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, a poorly chosen example perhaps but the point is that it shows how some would see us restricted to the mainstream agenda. A not particularly significant comment by one person is seen as so much more important than the common opinion of thousands of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnerment (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced neologism. I agree with the POV concerns commented on above; this definitely looks to be an attempt to use this as a point-of-view piece. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, attack article by probable COI SPA; inadequately sourced.  Sandstein   20:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologisms are a dime a dozen, this one is not notable. Equendil Talk 20:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Save This is a second posting, also in support of the page relating to the Gunnerment. Although the alleged closeness or otherwise of Tasmania's two major political parties to Gunns Pty Ltd is a hotly debated topic in Tasmania, the page itself would appear to be simple and unbiassed statement of the facts. As a Tasmanian, I can confirm that the term Gunnerment is in common use in just the context that the page describes. The page's author makes no comment as to the actual relationship; s/he simply identfies that there is a perception that a relationship exists, and that said relationship may be seen as improper, but doesn't go so far as to say that it is. However, the very fact that someone wishes the term removed does, perhaps, say something about the sensitivity of the issue. Please leave the page as it is.

Alastair58.169.79.155 (talk) 07:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The above "save" was made by and not Alastair or the IP 58.169.79.155. Bidgee (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, I believe he copied and pasted it from the articles talk page, it was a comment by an anonymous user who obviously did not know where to make his opinion known on this matter--UltraMagnus (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Save The term (along with the related "Gunnsmania") is indeed in currency amongst a significant part of the Tasmanian community (and the significance of both terms would be immediately apparent to many other Tasmanians on hearing them for the first time). No, I can't cite a "respectable" media source for this assertion. It is anecdotal, but in my opinion as a Tasmanian it would be difficult to attend a party in Hobart, Tasmania without the subject of the close ties between the government and this one corporation coming up, and it is likely some participant in the discussion would say "Gunnerment". It is of some interest that the following sentence which appears in the Wikipedia editing version of the text is not presented on the main page. Is there some sinister reason? -- "Perhaps the greatest illustration of this is the passing of special legislation to remove the company's controversial proposal to build a pulp mill from the state's planning system and give it its own fast track process" -- I say "sinister reason" because conspiracy theories currently flourish in Tasmania and they are mostly prompted by reports of dealings involving Gunns and the elected government.

Neil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.168.227.198 (talk) 09:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So? This is just your point of view (See WP:NPOV) and original research and the above does not deal with the issues at hand which has been expressed by myself and other editors. Bidgee (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Save/Keep I've cleaned up a lot of the references J. Thompson (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No you didn't. All the refs other then 3 blogs refs (unreliable sources) and 1 news site (which use the so called term "Gunnerment") don't really support the article. Bidgee (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a neologism. There isn't sufficient evidence to establish this as notable -- Whpq (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2008 (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.