Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama

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 speedy deleted by Dank55 CSD G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP. The decision to delete is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_March_15#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama. Closure by uninvolved admin --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy deleted. (non-admin closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 21:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This repeatedly recreted article Criticism of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been speedied five times[1] for reasons of Wikipedia:CSD#A3 (no meaningful content) and Wikipedia:CSD#A10 (attack page), and is now semi-salted to prevent new and IP editors from recreating it. There has been considerable interest in creating the article voiced at Talk:Barack Obama so a full discussion on this article is probably warranted.

Also please note {{Criticism of Barack Obama}}, which seems to exist only as a template to redirect to the nominated article. That should probably be speedied as no content / inappropriate use of a template. Wikidemon (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in its present form is a skeleton "working version", currently a list of links and unsourced disparagement, plus some disparaging comments about other editors, all created by a long-time Wikipedian who obviously intends that the article gets filled out and sourced eventually. However, I am concerned that as a criticism article it is inevitably a POV fork and will be impossible to maintain in a neutral, encyclopedic way. The author has already commented about "whitewashing", so presumably the goal is not to present a balanced, fair biography of the President (which would be redundant with his bio article anyway) but rather to coatrack criticism. That would then become a WP:BLP violation.Wikidemon (talk) 17:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Filled with unsourced allegations and borderline vulgarities, attacks on other editors and advertisement for his own recently created essays like the don't like it one, which i've nominated for speedy. He is of course, welcome to work on any article within reason in his sandbox (or on his PC, or on any off wiki location he choses). The sandbox work, i suppose, comes with the proviso that his effort doesn't exist simply to attack other editors or otherwise add to disruption. This "article" in its current location, and current form, has no redeeming value on its own merits, and seems sure to generate further conflict and disruption towards no discernible productive end.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to userspace. Mainspace isn't for a sandbox draft this rough. There are certainly grounds for and the ability to create a well-sourced well-written neutral article on the topic, however. THF (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy per User:THF. NB: I've added the "noindex" magic word to this article while the AfD's in progress, for safety's sake.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete blatant subversion of talk page consensus on Talk:Barack Obama Sceptre ^(talk) 18:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep There is enough material concerning multiple issues which are the subjects of reliable sources. Also, please see; Criticisms of Harry Reid, Criticism of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Criticism of Vladimir Putin and Criticism of Tony Blair for some examples. I will tag the article for further information, cleaning up and references - as all three are needed. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See also WP:POVFORK. We already have a "public image of..." article. A "critcism" article isn't needed. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference the above "keep" !vote is from the creator of the article. Wikidemon (talk) 18:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That is a lie! I did not create this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Additionally, in the last three examples, they're definitely POV forks. FDR ranks consistently as one of the top three presidents, Putin has an approval rating in the high eighties, and Blair is above-average for a Labour PM. I highly doubt they present a duly-weighted view of their subjects. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With rewrites, the POV issue can be taken care of. This is a legitimate topic. LetsdrinkTea 19:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The POV issues can't be taken care of. This is an unfixable content fork. If we got the POV issues sorted out (improbable), we'd have an article that'd be identical in purpose to Public image of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The POV issues can be taken care of by editors. Also, an article discussing well documented criticisms is not supose to be about the subjects "Public image," it is about well documented criticisms which are verified by, and the subject of, reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If this article would be allowed to persist, it would turn quickly into a honey pot for any editor who does not like the current president to post their criticism. There is no way such an article could maintain NPOV and may even become a launching board to push dubious sourced statements into other articles. Brothejr (talk) 19:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article is underconstruction and has been drastically edited; there is still much work to be done. It needs to be stated that wikipedians are capable of writing articles that discuss criticism. For an example please see, Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compiled from Talk:Obama, User talk:Dank55, and User talk:Stevertigo

Talk:Obama : This recent creation was tagged as an attack page for speedy deletion, and I just deleted it. I just wanted to make sure we're clear ... well-sourced, balanced information about anyone, including Barack Obama, is and always has been welcome in Wikipedia, but pages which exist only to disparage their subject will be deleted on sight, no matter who the subject is, per our policy on biographical material of living persons. As with any other deletion, anyone who disagrees is welcome to take the article to deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Dank55: You deleted a subpage article that is currently being discussed, citing your own POV assessment of what that article contains, characterizing such in a particularly POV way, and not having participated or given regard to discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama/Criticism of Barack Obama. Restore it now. Thanks. -Stevertigo 20:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk: Stevertigo: Please see Talk:Barack_Obama#Barack_Obama.2FCriticism_of_Barack_Obama for my rationale. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:22, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Dank55: You appear to have certain opinions about the value of that particular subpage draft. You might also have similar opinions about the creation of such subpages, the usage of templates transclusion to aid article development, and the motivations of the creator. All of them are certainly valid opinions, in the context of discussion. To simply delete something outright requires more than rationale; it requires that such rational be accurate and have the support of other editors. We are discussing that issue now, and your deletion only serves to destroy and stigmatize that strange process of discussion first, delete after. You made some charachterizations on the Talk:Obama page, not rationales. Restore it, and join the discussion. -Stevertigo 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk Dank55: As I mentioned on your talk page, the proper forum to review whether the deletion was appropriate is deletion review. Feel free to take the page there, and please let me know so I can watchlist the discussion. I'm always ready to learn if I've done something wrong. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk)

 In progress Stevertigo 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC): I'm listing the various points made above here, to organize them by concept, deal with any redundancy, and indicate which particular concepts are valid and which are specious, and why. And how.[reply]

• has been speedied five times
• has been considerable interest in creating the article voiced at Talk:Barack Obama so a full discussion on this article is probably warranted
• repeatedly recreted[sic] article
• template to redirect should probably be speedied as no content / inappropriate use of a template.
• article in its present form is a skeleton
• a list of links
• unsourced disparagement
• disparaging comments about other editors,
• created by a long-time Wikipedian who obviously intends that the article gets filled out and sourced eventually.
• a criticism article is inevitably a POV fork
• will be impossible to maintain in a neutral, encyclopedic way.
• commented about "whitewashing" presumably means the goal is not to present a balanced, fair biography
• which would be redundant with his bio article anyway
• to coatrack criticism
• would then become a WP:BLP violation
• "filled" with unsourced allegations
• borderline vulgarities
• attacks on other editors
• sandbox comes with the proviso that his effort doesn't exist simply to attack other editors or otherwise add to disruption.
• advertisement for his own recently created essays like the don't like it one, which i've nominated for speedy.
• He (Stevertigo) is welcome to go somewhere else:
• to work on any article within reason
• in his "sandbox" PC, or on any off wiki location "he choses"
• article in its current location, and current form,
• has no redeeming value on its own merits,
• seems sure to generate further conflict and disruption
• towards no discernible productive end.
• are certainly grounds for and the ability to create a well-sourced well-written neutral article on the topic
• userfy
• Mainspace isn't for a sandbox draft this rough.
• The POV issues can't be taken care of.
• This is an unfixable content fork.
• in the last three examples, (FDR, Putin, Blair) they're definitely POV forks.
• identical in purpose to Public image of Barack Obama and Presidency of Barack Obama.
• honey pot for any editor who does not like the current president to post their criticism.
• There is no way such an article could maintain NPOV
• may even become a launching board to push dubious sourced statements into other articles.
• For reference the above "keep" !vote is from the creator of the article.
• blatant subversion of talk page consensus on Talk:Barack Obama

- Stevertigo 20:19, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To quote WP:BLP: "Summary [speedy] deletion in part or whole is relevant when the page contains unsourced negative material or is disparaging and written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be repaired or replaced to an acceptable standard." To quote WP:Attack page: "An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time." I have speedily deleted this page, and since it's already been speedily deleted under this and another name 6 times now, I have salted it (protected against recreation) for 1 month. I don't make the rules, I just enforce them. This is perhaps the one policy that the Wikimedia Foundation feels the most strongly about, since Wikipedia is subject to the same laws no defamation that everyone else in the U.S. is. As always, I could be wrong, and if so, the place to contest this is deletion review. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Update As the article has been speedy deleted. Please see, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 March 15 for the deletion review. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.