Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:46, 11 May 2014

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. §FreeRangeFrog 23:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? No consensus was reached and there was discussion about starting a new page like "Public Image of Stephen Harper" or something similar. JOttawa16 (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Harper Derangement Syndrome

Harper Derangement Syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is written very much like an attack page. all sources are either broken or are unreliable. Staglit (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete - Simple poorly sourced political attack page designed to boost the credibility of the ruling party and denigrate the opposition, created by an editor with a long history of POV article creation in support of one specific political party. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox for your political views. - Ahunt (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak keep Nom is right that it's written like an attack page now (this isnt a real mental illness, for one), but this should be fixed by rewriting the page not deleting it. I would redirect it to Public image of Stephen Harper (as was done with Bush derangement syndrome), but that page doesn't exist. In any case coverage of HDS in RSs is sufficient to establish notability. Jinkinson talk to me 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Then let's keep this topic (HDS) as a topic to be discussed in another topic about the rabid hatred of Stephen Harper. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Weak keep Completely agree with Jinkinson. The tone of the article needs to be softened, as it is severely anti-liberal as it stands presently, but the term seems to be reasonably well-sourced and there is no doubt that some people hate anything and everything about the Prime Minister. 209.90.140.72 (talk) 22:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:51, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete Yes, I'm familiar with the term. Google it as a phrase, and you'll see it's been used in reliable sources, as have variants for Bush, Obama.... and yes, Trudeau. But this reads like such a blatant, textbook case of WP:COATRACK, such a clear attempt to use the term as an attack page, so contrary to WP:N in the most fundamental way, and so lacking in any NPOV content worth preserving, and it should go. If somebody wants to try create an NPOV article for this subject, fine. This is an insult to the reader's intelligence and I would have certainly tried to speedily delete as an attack page, utterly devoid of encyclopaedic content. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep If there is an issue with the article's published content, then let's clean up the article and make it better and more complete. But there is no need to delete it: as others have pointed out, it speaks to the Canadian version of a political phrase that has been used in the United States too (for example, Bush Derangement Syndrome). JOttawa16 (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• But the subject of the article itself is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia. Harper Derangement Syndrome is solely used as an attack to people complaining about the conservatives. It has no place in Misplaced Pages. Even if it is determened to be a relevant subject, it would have to fundamentally rewritten as it has so many issues. Staglit (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• — Note to closing admin: JOttawa16 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: There is no Bush Derangement Syndrome article, it redirects to Public image of George W. Bush. - Ahunt (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Once again, JOttawa16 has made an attack page on liberals. This article should really be speedy deleted as an attack page. A short section on Stephen Harper's only noting the media's use of the term, might be relevant, but anything more than that is too much. JDDJS (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete. Ridiculous attack page. The person who wrote it should be topic banned from political articles. Ping me if there's an RFC/U or ANI discussion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually I agree that the article creator, JOttawa16, should be topic banned from all political pages, his editing history clearly shows WP:NOTHERE. - Ahunt (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd agree, too, that it's reached the stage where a topic ban is warranted. Or at least a discussion of same. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd strongly agree with a topic ban. How many times has he tried to force Decade of Darkness on to Misplaced Pages? JDDJS (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Wow, talk about a personal attack. I posted Decade of Darkness once as its own page. Then it was suggested I post it again as a sub-topic of another page. So I did. There, too, apparently it was inappropriate to post the truth. JOttawa16 (talk) 20:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
      • You made it twice (once as Decade of Darkness and once as Decade of darkness). You started a deletion review about it. Yo tried to add it into several different pages, including Rick Hillier, Jean Chretien and Canadian Forces. And it is not "the truth". It's an opinion being posted as fact. JDDJS (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
        • As fas as the truth goes, WP:THETRUTH applies. - Ahunt (talk) 01:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Even if the term warrants coverage, it doesn't warrant its own article (it would be a minor mention, in a large article discussing criticism from all sides). Even if it warranted its own article, this wouldn't be the starting point. There's a good reason for speedy deleting attack articles. It discourages their creation. Writers of an attack article are like hecklers in public. They know they'll eventually get shut down, but they hope to yell their message for as long as possible before then, to be heard from as many as possible, and they know they'll come back and do it again another day. --Rob (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2014 (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.