| Revision as of 20:09, 17 October 2018 editSir Joseph (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers19,854 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 17 October 2018 edit undoDeepfriedokra (talk | contribs)Administrators173,342 edits →User:JzG/Politics: endorseNext edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| :{{DRV links|User:JzG/Politics|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics|article=}} | :{{DRV links|User:JzG/Politics|xfd_page=Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:JzG/Politics|article=}} | ||
| It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) | It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. ] <sup>]</sup> 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC) | ||
| *'''endorse''' close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- ] (]) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:17, 17 October 2018
< 2018 October 16 Deletion review archives: 2018 October 2018 October 18 >17 October 2018
User:JzG/Politics
It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Misplaced Pages. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. Sir Joseph 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- endorse close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)