- Nasty Party (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Nominating on behalf of User:Dwanyewest, who made this edit to DRV talk recently, which I understand to mean a request for deletion review. I am neutral. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose recreation. I don't think it's an attack page, just non-notable; just because there have been a few usages of the term in reliable sources doesn't make it article-worthy. I wouldn't object to a sentence or two in Conservative Party (UK) though. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore How and why was this removed? There are hundreds of reliable sources for the usage which has been common in political circles since Theresa May used it in her conference speech. We might have it as a redirect to her article initially but there's scope to expand it as it is a notable and significant political concept which is now extended to other parties. It's commonplace in recent years to observe that Labour has become the 'nasty party', for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep deleted - We don't need to fill the project with every idiotic, partisan nickname that political opponents come up with. Dhimmicrats for the Democratic Party and Rethuglicans for the Republican Party get a lot of use too. Tarc (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to misunderstand the topic. The concept and term was coined by a leading member of the party in question. By documenting the matter properly, we will enlighten and inform the ignorant and prejudiced and so fulfil our educational mission. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't misunderstand the non-notability of pet nicknames. Nice try though. Tarc (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I think anyone who understands British politics would agree that this has, of late, been a commonplace term for the Conservative Party. With all due respect for Black Kite's view, I think he's wrong about notability for this title. I think the concern is not about notability or verifiability, but about neutral point of view, which is one of Wikipedia's five pillars. There are certainly editors who feel that such a title is "inherently POV", which is Wikipedia jargon for any material on Wikipedia that tends to persuade rather than to inform. This is the objection you need to deal with for the deletion to be reversed.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|