Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moderate Left (Liberal Party of Australia)

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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Moderate Left (Liberal Party of Australia)[edit]

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

This is a joint nomination along with Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia: both articles are entirely original research, largely unsourced (and unsourceable) and raises a bunch of BLP issues through the unsourced addition of names to the article's various claims. These "factions" do not exist: there is no quantifiable grouping calling itself the "Moderate Left" or the "Conservative Right": there are just moderate and conservative MPs with varying points of agreement and disagreement as in any political party. There are kind-of-factions in the Liberal Party: but they're not these factions, and an article on the actual factions would actually be able to be sourceable (since reliable sources would, in fact, exist). The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:40, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics -related deletion discussions. WeAreAllHere _talk 03:43, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page were to be deleted, then I suspect that the matching Conservative Right Liberal Party of Australia should also be reviewed. They are the two notionally active factions mentioned in {{Liberal Party of Australia}}, along with two noted as defunct. I think the best solution may to merge sourced aspects of both articles to Liberal Party of Australia#Philosophies and factionalism then if the need arises extract a single subordinate sourced factionalism article from it. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Lord, that one is even worse - have nominated it as well and rewritten the nomination. The sentence in Liberal Party of Australia claiming that there are two left/right factions is unsourced nonsense and probably added by the author of this article - I actually chopped the whole paragraph because it was an unsourced mess. I think there's very little that could be salvaged apart from adding a sentence or two about moderate-conservative ideological tensions sourced to actual facts. An actually-sourced article on Liberal factions would have to refer to the actual (state-and-usually-personality-based) factions-of-sorts: e.g. Michael Kroger vs. whoever is opposing him these days in Victoria, the four or five groupings in New South Wales, and the equivalent (real) groupings in other states as opposed to these two articles spouting unsourced fiction. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I stand by "merge sourced content",~~ but also accept the comment further down by Dom from Paris and The Gnome that it could well be a null edit. The few references used for the long list of MPs do not actually support the claim being made. I support delete without redirect as there is no evidence of an organisation to document. --Scott Davis ^Talk 04:42, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottDavis: The problem with merge is that someone has to do the job and to do so requires leaving this article available and then creating a redirect. Maybe if you believe there is stuff to save you could copy the article to your sandbox and then do the merge after the deletion if that is what is decided. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Merge advocacy struck through. Thank you. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as per nom. No need to attempt to merge WP:OR into any other articles. Dom from Paris (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination this atrociously written thumbsucker of an article. It's so fully infected by biased, original work that it cannot be saved. And, of course, it should not be allowed to infect other texts. -The Gnome (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:OR and not a neutral POV. Not plausable search terms so no need to redirect to anything either -- Whats new?^(talk) 09:48, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Factions in the Liberal Party of Australia should be created at some point to discuss the various intricacies of the party, but the current articles are awful. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Some level of discussion of the factions, acknowledging the fact that they are informal ones, is useful somewhere as it does have a bearing on the current understanding of the Liberal Party. Agreed, this article needs lots of improvement, but some consideration should be given to relocate some of it into other articles.
- But there's nothing here to salvage: these aren't articles on Liberal factions broadly, they're articles on two specific - and completely fictional - factions. There's nothing to improve. A hypothetical Factions in the Liberal Party of Australia article on actually-existing factions could use nothing from this article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2018 (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.