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 SPEEDY DELETE. JIP | Talk 05:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Grundle2600/My own personal article about Barack Obama[edit]

A hit piece on Mr. Obama. Cannot reasonably be defended as an attempt at a proper article as we already have an article on the president. Pretty much a blog/personal observations in user space, not a proper use of Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete. This isn't an article, or a draft article; this is a collection of filtered facts to portray Barack Obama in a negative way. Totally inappropriate. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if it would be appropriate to simply tag it for speedy deletion as an attack page. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Attack page" seems overblown. Grundle clearly has a dim opinion of Obama; he's as entitled to express this as he'd be to express a favorable opinion of Obama. It's not as if Obama is a private person unaccustomed to criticism. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for the reasons given at the outset by Beeblebox. -- Hoary (talk) 02:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obliterate - if Grundle2600 wants to attack Obama, he should create a blog or something like that. Wikipedia is not a blog or a web host. WP:BLP should still apply to this page, as should WP:NPOV - which this clearly violates. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Axe meets grinder. Totally inappropriate use of user space. Take it to one of the many free blog hosts. – ukexpat (talk) 02:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'd intended to nominate this for deletion myself, but it fell off the table. I asked the user what is was all about awhile ago, but was met with some rather tepid "tut tut, WP:AGF" blandishments from others, which was bunk. It is not a sandbox for future additions to articles. What it is is a collection of junk that has been chucked out of various Obama/political articles. As I noted once before, it just appears to be yet another tired example of "look what the Wikiliberals are censoring!" flag-waving. It has no hope of passing policy or guidelines for article space. Tarc (talk) 03:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• G10 Never mind that I'm a conservative, I still think that this is rather attack-y. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and tighten up policy language to cover such instances explicitly. This is just one person's opinion and cherry picking of facts, not a valid sandbox. NJGW (talk) 04:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like wp:UP#Copies of other pages, wp:UP#OWN and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Non-article space apply here, but some of the language could use some tweaking, or maybe an integration of these sections into one coheirent guideline. A speedy criteria as Robofish suggests below also sounds like a great idea. NJGW (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sold that it is a speedy delete. It is not the intended use of BLP; I don't see a legal issue there about unfounded accusations, and while it is a NPOV problem, that is not speedy deletion criteria (and certainly not in the User space). --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second TeaDrinker. -- Hoary (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - this isn't an article, it's a partisan hit piece. I agree that if our current speedy criteria don't cover this, we need to rewrite them so they do. Robofish (talk) 04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a blog, so don't use it as one. Hi878 (talk) 04:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting personal views on topics unrelated to editing the encyclopedia. It is not a free content host, even if the editor is otherwise doing the encylopedia good service. --TeaDrinker (talk) 05:22, 4 May 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.