The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Delete. An interesting discussion to be sure. Reading through it, it seems clear to me that there's a consensus that Wikipedia should not host this page at this time. Stevertigo is of course free to use another site and it may be possible to revisit this topic at some point in the future (as harej notes), however, right now this page has no place on Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism[edit]

User:Stevertigo/Obama and accusations of National Socialism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This discussion has been relisted per a subsequent discussion at DRV. I have struck through and indented the previous closures and reopenings in an attempt to avoid confusion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm closing this early because its obvious where this is going and this can never be moved to the mainspace in this format. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)|padding=1px}}|}}[reply]

Reopening: Sorry, Spartaz - your closing interrupted the posting of my response. Reopening, for this reason and others as stated below. -Stevertigo 13:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry steve its still snowing Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook G10 (come on, it's a Godwin, for crying out loud). Has to be MfD'd because the speedy was declined for no reason. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced attack page. I was considering speeding this myself but mfd would be a better venue. --Chris 10:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete WP:BLP violations to begin with Jamesofur (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If you read it, it's not actually an attack on OB, however it's so POV in tone in language it would never be acceptable in an article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  G10 stopped being about attack pages years ago. It now applies to any BLP violating page with no neutral version in the history. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - there is not even a remote chance this one will stick. --Ezeu (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — as an essay it does not belong, and as a potential article it does not belong. @harej 11:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, there might be academic legitimacy for such a topic, whether now or at some point in the future. That is, if there is any hope to make this into a neutral article (that might be hard with a title that insinuates that Barack Obama is a Nazi). @harej 11:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as egregious BLP violation. — neuro^(talk) 12:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice. There's nothing intrinsically wrong about the concept of such an article, but at this ponit, it would be nothing more than a POV fork. --Ashenai (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Chuckle! - Cameron Scott said: "If you read it, it's not actually an attack on OB." Does Cameron think that people haven't actually read it? Why then would they be voting to delete something they haven't read? Do people MFD articles just because of the title? This would be my suspicion also, and anyway there has always been a high percentage AFD/MFD regulars who will vote "delete" without actually reading the text. 'Deletionism just can't be slowed down by 'reading.' This is the case here :

Sceptre wrote: "Textbook G10 (come on, it's a Godwin, for crying out loud)." Note that Sceptre has not only misattributed the "article" as a "Textbook G10 [attack page]", and "a Godwin," but when Cameron pointed out that the "article" is not actually an "attack page" - Spectre also made the specious claim that "G10 stopped being about attack pages years ago. It now applies to any BLP violating page with no neutral version in the history." Is he right? Let's see what WP:CSD G10 says!:

"Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, and biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met."

(Spectre was one of the main perpetrators in the WP:RFAR/OA case, and may still be bitter about it as I'm the one who filed it. I don't agree with the Arbcom much anymore as its members have become quite insular, so I empathize with Sceptre to a certain extent. But as people here can see for themselves how inaccurate he is, and how suspect his motives are, I shouldn't need to comment further).

On a lighter note, Cameron Scott wrote: "however it's so POV in tone in language it would never be acceptable in an article." - This can be easily cleaned up. In fact I wrote it to be both an NPOV overview as well as to be a little bit POV - just to let people know where my own bias is on the issue. I expect others would remove any POV without issue. Not hard to do, but deletionism is easier.

Ashenai wrote: "Delete without prejudice [even though] There's nothing intrinsically wrong about the concept of such an article" - Delete it even though there's nothing wrong with it? So your saying its not an "attack page?" Her reasons are clear, somewhat, she adds: "..but at this ponit, it would be nothing more than a POV fork." How? A fork of what? -Stevertigo 13:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it still fails WP:V which is a must when dealing with BLPs of this nature. --Chris 13:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Cutting in - was interrupted mid-edit) There is no issue of "regardless" here, when without effort I've managed to nullify several of the above votes by demonstrating that their reasons are unsubtantiated and therefore insubstantial.

The issue of WP:V is perhaps the first valid criticism thus far. To that, I will say 1) its not a BLP article: a) its a draft in my own personal subspace, b) its a BLP-related article, not a BLP article (for example, the Bush administration article is not a BLP article) c) its not done yet. "Drafts" are works in progress. Here on WP, so are "articles" - as you may have noticed. What is the BLP standard then for a non-bio, draft, stub, in user subspace? -Stevertigo 14:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And does WP:V cover userspace drafts? I don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 13:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does if it's regarding a living person. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userspace drafts were not a free for all for libellious content the last time I looked, Mick. — neuro^(talk) 14:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing the libelous/slanderous content that needs sourcing, only a bunch of unsourced opinion that you see everyday on Fox news. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for not wanting Wikipedia to adhere to the standards of Fox News. — neuro^(talk) 14:04, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, Fox News might actually let you get a sentence through before cutting you off. Its not been too different here. -Stevertigo 14:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as just a dumb "criticism of..." article with no merit or substance whatsoever. It is also worth noting that it was actually Severtigo's disruptive antics that made him the one of the "main perpetrators" that led to the Obama-article ArbCom decision. Not Sceptre. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• **Relisted at this point after discussion at DRV. Please add new comments below.** Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• {{lu}} added above, for convenience. Also, the DRV mentioned by Xymmax is located at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is a draft that has the potential to become either an encyclopaedic article or an encyclopaedic section of a larger article, given time. There appear to be sufficient sources available to satisfy both WP:V and WP:BLP for all or the majority of the claims, but time needs to be given to allow these to be found and added - and of course any that are not actually sourceable, despite initial impressions to the contrary, can and be removed individually.

  When the draft has matured sufficiently then it can be moved to article space as an article or section, depending on the consensus of involved editors of the subject area; and it will then be subject to all the usual WP:BLP etc policies (and nominated at AfD if someone feels it appropriate). Iff there is no consensus for it to become either an article or section then we can discuss deleting it at MfD. Of course if development of the draft stalls before it gets to that point then an MfD would be appropriate, but we must avoid being too hasty - there is no deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep For all the reasons elucidated above by User:Thryduulf. Article should be expanded to mention the exact same accusations were leveled against the Labor govt. in postwar Britain over the adoption of the National Health Service. L0b0t (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Leaning to weak delete. If this eventually becomes a soured and neutral article, it would still be in a class of articles I wish we didn't have. However, what kind of articles we have isn't dependent upon my wishes. That said, there is a real problem of the sort described about where an article like this can basically function as a coatrack whereby we publicize hyperbolic and insane accusations while clucking our tongues about the very same. When the article was at DRV it looked very much like that to me. Protonk (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Expanding on my original nomination, nuke it from orbit along with anyone who thinks this article is a good idea. There was, is, and never was any place on Wikipedia to treat the logical fallacy of reductio ad Hitlerum seriously. Let's give a little bit of a history lesson here: the misuse of political ideology to disparage a proponent of a policy you don't like was so widespread that George Orwell wrote an essay about it in 1946. That's sixty-three years ago. While that was about the word "fascist", its cousin "Nazi" was added as a corollary in the mid-fifties. So the misuse of the term is a known fact to have taken place for at least two generations, and about forty years before Mike Godwin formulated his eponymous law. Serious use in a political context would get you laughed at at best, and your career wrecked at worst. This is why smart people laugh at people who think it's acceptable to use the word to describe another person. And this is why no-one with an ounce of common sense takes Glenn Beck seriously (come on, the man can't even spell "oligarchy").

  This brings us up to the main point about WP:UNDUE. While a claim can be notable, it doesn't mean that it must be covered on Wikipedia. I believe that covering these claims constitutes an NPOV violation by giving undue weight to said logical fallacy. The view is simply not held by a proportion of reliable sources to justify inclusion. That, and covering something patently incorrect as if it was a valid viewpoint also violates NPOV. It does not matter that you debunk the claims. All that does is violates NPOV more, not less, by deigning to refute a logical fallacy. You don't need to. We can just ignore it. That's better neutrality than taking every viewpoint under the sun and balancing them. One mention would violate UNDUE. A whole section, or worse, a whole article dedicated to this viewpoint throws UNDUE over a barrel and viciously sodomises it. It doesn't matter if it's Obama or the NHS, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. End of.

  And a final note on the "it's in reliable sources, we must cover it" belief. Wrong. It's actually "it's in reliable sources, we can cover it." Of course these allegations are being covered! This is the Leader of the Free World we're talking about! Even his wife's arms or his disdain for airborne insects will get coverage, especially on a slow news day. We didn't cover the allegations that Bush is a Nazi seriously, even though they were way more widespread, it's simply right-wing bias and absolutely reckless to even think of covering these claims.

  Oh, and a final nail in the coffin: Google News coverage of Obama's activities from the past hour regarding 9/11 tributes beats coverage of the various Nazi claims from the past month 5-to-1. And 90% of the results for "Obama nazi" don't focus on the "Nazi" epithet at all. Thank you, have a nice day. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, and I forgot: there is no reason to assume good faith here on the part of Stevertigo. This article is just another way to get his coveted "Criticism of Barack Obama" article in through the back door. This is the same behaviour from him that caused Obama articles RfAr. Stevertigo should be topic banned at the very least. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not believe that Wikipedia should host this content.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for pretty much every reason Sceptre brought up. People are saying that he is a National Socialist... but those claims are not verifiable. In fact, they're downright wrong and don't belong here. The contrary elements are equally bad. For example, this sentence:

  • Conservative media in the United States is notably unconcerned with facts, and its audience —suspicious of liberal bias —is largely dismissive of educated views. Hence such claims tend to resonate within conservative circles.

• That's not verifiable either. It's like somebody took a piece out of their personal blog and decided it was good enough for Wikipedia. Falsetto (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? Are you telling me that I can't find serious work arguing that the Gingrich revolution republicans and conservative media post-Buckley are anti-intellectual? I really don't think much of the whole "on/other hand" statements which amount to a near-contentless "pox on both your houses" admonition. Protonk (talk) 01:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Parse - Reading some of the comments. Its strange that people still think its an "attack page," a "criticism of" article, a "Godwin" and a "reductio ad Hitlerum" article all rolled into one, when in fact its simply covering the recent phenomenon of personal attacks against the President. The most notable of these attacks is of course a reductio ad Hitlerum itself, put forth by both conservatids and libertudians, who base their "Godwin vio" largely on a wider deeper misconception about history that thinks that the Nazis were "left-wing socialists" just because they had "Socialism" in their name (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - NSDAP).
• Clarification on the above fallacy:

• (cont'd) Just to clarify the historical dimensions, and thus the scope of the fallacy (itself perhaps called "reductio ad Nazium" ;-) ): The Nazi's were right-wing nationalist fascists - *not left-wing collectivist liberals - who only employed the word "socialism" because in early 20th century Europe it was a nice utopian and anti-monarchical buzzword that helped them attract a popular following. After they gained power, anyone of rank with even a tinge of moderate or independent sensibilities was killed and thus kicked out of the party back in the early 30's when they still called themselves "Brownshirts." There is of course a valid criticism of people that could be seduced by language like "socialism," thereby unwittingly giving rise to fascists opportunism. It's a bit over-sophisticated, but valid even though the point is never very well stated in right-wing diatribes. The latter, though, seem just as capable of similar unwittingness.
• (cont'd) I just noticed that National Socialism is now a discrete article, not redirected to the NSDAP anymore. Does the term actually mean anything besides the NSDAP? I don't think so, and the article's sourcings are overwhelmingly about the NSDAP and Hitler. Some appear to deal with a more general ideology of "fascism" but there is no treatment in the article about the even more specious ad Naziam/reductum ad Socialism fallacy.
• (cont'd) Back to this subpage. Granted, it might be better to deal with these points at a more general bio article, and refer there to other more generalized concepts like ad Hitlerum (which doesn't get into the National Socialism thing at all) "Godwin's" (Law? Conjecture, maybe) and to some article which deals with the National Socialism = Socialism = liberals fallacy. Nobody takes the ad Hitlerum fallacy seriously anyway, so the issue is the ad Naziam one.
• (cont'd) In any case, I'm glad to see that its possible to keep a subspace page for more than forty minutes, so I can maybe work on it a little add some sources, get some help from other people, and consider if it might be an article or else just broken up into parts for different articles. I could then maybe take a break, take a shower, and give a shit. Regards -Stevertigo 00:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this were an AfD i would vote delete on the basis that this is not significant. If you are a politician, chances are you have been compared to Stalin, Hitler, et al and called a communist, fascist, nazi, etc etc. Furthermore, there are exactly zero sources for this page. The "Socialism" part is not even really relevant to the subject. Sure, this is a draft and I am hesitant about deleting this abruptly, however because of the nature of this subject if anyone were to see this I would hate to think what image of Wikipedia this would put across. Triplestop x3 02:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - perhaps an encyclopedic topic, but not as it stands. The comparison between Obama and Nazism in turn has been called baseless, and inexcusable.WP:SOAPBOX applies. (sorry I misread) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still favoring delete... reads too much like a personal essay with severe WP:OR issues. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - amended per Thryduulf. The user deserves a chance to fix this. If it's still there in 7 months with no improvement... Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote would make sense at an AfD discussion, but this is a draft in userspace. The point of drafting articles in userspace is that they don't have to be fully formed encylopaedia articles immediately, the creator(s) have time to find the sources, etc. they need so that it is encyclopaedic when it is moved to article space (in whatever form). Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to matter, Thryduulf as long as people are still afraid that anything on Wikipedia can violate BLP, even if its in userspace, and as such must be obliterated before Siegenthaller has a chance to see it. He himself didn't see the slander in his own article for months and months, and yet somehow he's going to come along and point at my subpage and mistake it for main content. Anyway. Maybe a template notice at the top of subspace drafts would fend off the deletionistas. That, and maybe not announcing it on a major bio talk page, but I do remember a less paranoid time when we used user subspace to work together on drafts. -Stevertigo 00:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly. Do you, Stevertigo, think that this "draft" (besides having not even one source) will make his way into an article? If you're serious about it (besides trying to make a point?), start adding citations ASAP to give it a chance. Otherwise it is nothing more than what was already pointed out in this AFD.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no BLP exemption for userspace. We'd let you off if this was a half-hearted attempt at neutrality, but, no, it really isn't. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is potentially an encyclopaedic topic, but the existing draft has such comprehensive POV problems that it would need to be started from scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete The author is obviously an anti-Obama nut. Not encyclopedic topic; even if refers to ten thousand sources that repeat the slander Obama as a racist Nazi, we can't cover it because it violates NOR and CITE. And if the user wants to make a draft of his own pov rants, he can use MS Word, not Wikipedia. It is also written EXTREMELY pov. Like how he calls Nazis "right-wing nationalist facists." -20.30.304.019 (talk)

FYI, the above user is Stevertigo who made just a sarcastic remark although he voted for deletion of his own draft.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment struck. Steve, make points, not WP:POINTs. lifebaka++ 22:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think anything I could say against this article has been said (with the obvious exception of the above user's comments), but it's a BLP nightmare to start with, and I don't think it's a particularly notable topic. Skinny87 (talk) 19:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and allow to be developed in user space. If it fails WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:GNG, etc. when moved to article space, then address the article at that point in time. We're not here to dictate what editors are allowed to try to write about, only what is acceptable when they've put them forth to mainspace. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It will always fail NPOV—and by extension, BLP—by the simple fact of its existence, no matter which namespace it's in. Just because it's a supposed "draft" does not give carte blanche to violate our policies. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sceptre, you make the statement: "And this is why no-one with an ounce of common sense takes Glenn Beck seriously (come on, the man can't even spell "oligarchy")." in the same breath that you espouse the UNDUE section of NPOV; and now expect me to be swayed by your views on that, or any other policy? I don't think so. — Ched :  ?  06:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that this is project in progress and should be treated as such. It is not even sited on mainpace so there is no conflict between wiki protocol about articles. I also do not see any anti-Obama tirades, rather the opposite. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy Delete Clear violation of Wp:Blp--SKATER ^Speak. 04:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just pointing out, but this already went to DRV because it was speedy deleted, and this result was overturned. G10 does not cover BLP violations. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting that this be speedied...we already went down that road and it didn't work...but speedy criteria G10 specifically links to WP:BLP, so I'm not sure how you can say it doesn't cover it. I filed a speedy request for Ogabe a few days ago for example, and it was accepted. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that it doesn't cover all BLP violations, as it certainly applies to a subset. I note that the text "Michael Jackson flew to Mars and had cake with me for my birthday!" also violates BLP, but an article consisting of it wouldn't be a G10. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to note that this page is a word-for-word identical copy (excepting tags at the top) of the page in question. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete .. unsourced WP:BLP vios should not exist anywhere in Wikipedia. --guyzero | talk 19:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this will never make into article space in any remotely similar form. It's exactly the kind of page WP:BLP is supposed to prevent. We shouldn't allow it in userspace either. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I agree that this will never make it into the article space plus there is few if any sources that could back this up. Besides the WP:BLP vio possibilities, it could/would very easily (especially taking into account Stevertigo's past with regards to Obama related articles) turn into a "criticism of" article with the excuse that we would have to show examples of the criticisms that the article would have been created for and thus any outlandish criticism that included the word socialism would have been coat racked into this article as examples. Brothejr (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm sure there's a place for this on Conservapedia. Lacking notablity under our standards, and with such fundamental NPOV problems, an active liability to keep in userspace. Gigs (talk) 17:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Read before voting either way - Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 05:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the LULZ.--Die4Dixie (talk) 07:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.

I'm sure there's a place for this on Conservapedia.

Huh?!? Steve's article is documenting the (highly notable) slurs against the President, not creating them. When the right-wing anger incited by Beck, Limbaugh, etc., finally does erupt into violence, the topic of Steve's article will have a secure place in history. — goethean ॐ 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I wouldn't go that far. People no doubt do still understand the value of just chilling out. Suffice it to say I'm happy that one or two people at least understand how to actually read an article. I had nowhere near the idea that Pudlians here could not deal objectively with the subject matter, in something that I took all of twenty minutes to draft (with interruptions). And the illiteracy apparent in the mischaracterizations of many delete votes is amazing, considering I made it quite the opposite of those characterizations.-Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Not quite. The "article" content was entirely a product of the author's personal opinion; no sources, no references, not a shred of much of anything to back it up. The Wikipedia is not the place for original research or self-published writings. Furthermore, "Obama is Hitler!" is little more than fringe conspiracy blathering, to be found only on blogs, web forums, and placards carried at teabagger rallies. We shouldn't be elevating fringe whackjob criticisms into a full-blown article; by doing so, it is only providing more ammo against Obama, a subject which Steve seems to have a fairly sizable problem with. That is the BLP issue for which this should've been deleted in the first place.

BTW, we're now at the 7-day point that this relist was intended. Time to lay this dead horse to rest? Tarc (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate you putting your thoughts together so well, Tarc. Still the question remains: Can users collaborate on subpage drafts, such as to build them into complete articles, without having them automatically speedy deleted? I understand your point about fringe issue, but disagree with your characterization that there is no place here to treat such subjects objectively - reconceptualizing, splitting, and merging them if necessary. Anyway, I have no objections to deleting it at this point. We've all learned enough from this experience. -Stevertigo (wlog | talk | edits) 18:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "article" content was entirely a product of the author's personal opinion; no sources, no references, not a shred of much of anything to back it up. The Wikipedia is not the place for original research or self-published writings.

Userpages are now subject to WP:RS? All of them? Or just a few? — goethean ॐ 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, "Obama is Hitler!" is little more than fringe conspiracy blathering, to be found only on blogs, web forums, and placards carried at teabagger rallies.

I guess you don't watch much CNN or FOX. — goethean ॐ 20:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's your first mistake: watching FOX. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More evidence of dysliteracy. — goethean ॐ 21:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just saying, the FNC should not be taken seriously. Also, I don't need to read the "work in progress" to know this article is inappropriate. Even if we rebuke the accusations, it's still giving undue weight to a logical fallacy. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant. Just absolutely brilliant. — goethean ॐ 00:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm being serious. The FNC, out of all the mainstream news channels, would be the least reliable. I'm not talking about the pundits. I'm talking about the news updates themselves. Because, you know, FL-16 elected the same a Democrat to Congress in 1995 to 2007. And South Carolina has a Democratic governor. And so on. Either a) they're not doing basic research on news stories, and/or b) they're deliberately labelling Republican politicians in scandals as Democrats. Both cast a shadow of doubt on the network's reliability. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget "Hurricane Katrina (D)" (for those who have seen the Colbert Report and remember that specific episode like I have). @harej 03:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Is a draft and we have far more leeway about what drafts can have. Given that the individual is the president of the United States, BLP claims are very hard to credit in terms of a do-no-harm logic. Furthermore, the general pattern of such claims as it has been discussed at a meta level by reliable sources isn't even negative (indeed, the entire thing seems to me to be far more negative about his opponents than against Obama). There's no good reason not to keep in this userspace and give him time to make an article fully worthy of mainspace. If in three months we revisit this and that has not happened then we may want to renominate. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:16, 21 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.