Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loony left

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 keep. Let is snow, let it snow, let it snow. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Loony left

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

Not notable. The first sentence says that it is about the expression "loony left." However it never establishes that that is notable. It then goes off in a WP:Coatrack about the politics in some town in England. I don't doubt that there are "loony" people on the political left, as well as the right and even the center, but this is not the right title for a WP article about them. Borock (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a general expression. You can always have "crazy right", "wicked liberals", "loony Greens" etc. All of these expressions are probably used extensively in politics and the media but they are not notable phrases in their own right. Gizza^Discuss ^© 08:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither Libtard (AfD discussion) nor Repug (AfD discussion). There most definitely are reliable sources, beyond the one already cited in the article, that record the election campaign by a U.K. political party in the 1980s, based upon recording and publicizing incidents of "Loony Leftism", and the effect that it had on the policies and election strategies of the Labour Party (UK). Such sources include:
- John Gyford; Steve Leach; Chris Game (1989). The changing politics of local government. Routledge. pp. 310–313. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |last-author-amp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
- John Lea (2008). Political Correctness and Higher Education: British and American Perspectives. Taylor & Francis. pp. 157–161. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Ralph M. Negrine (1989). Politics and the mass media in Britain. Routledge. pp. 11–12. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- James Thomas (2005). Popular newspapers, the Labour Party and British politics. British politics and society. Routledge. pp. 92–93. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Ivor Gaber (2005). "Slaying the Dragon". In James Curran; Julian Petley; Ivor Gaber (eds.). Culture wars: the media and the British left. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 208–210. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
- Kathleen Jones (2006). The Making of Social Policy in Britain: From the Poor Law to New Labour (3rd ed.). Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 170–171. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
Sources exist. (One was already cited in the article.) They document this by this very name. (Lea's title, for example, is "Loony Leftism and the British tabloid press".) They document more than is in the article, containing as they do political and historical analyses of the campaign. This is a sourced stub with clear scope for expansion. Per Wikipedia:Deletion policy we keep and expand those. Per Wikipedia:Editing policy perfection ab initio is not required. And per Wikipedia:Stub and Wikipedia:Article development an imperfect article based upon a single source is a beginning. Uncle G (talk) 08:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Uncle G's sources back what I know as a Brit: loony left is a term the rabid right use to poison the well against anyone whose politics lie to the left of The Blessed Margaret. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. Although sourced, it only has one source right now, and goes off as nominator says into a WP:COATRACK for the continuation of the article. The article needs major improvement, as well as a rewrite to have a neutral POV to have me change my view to keep. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Improvement is done by editing, not deletion. And assertions of coatracking are not based in fact at all. The topic encompasses the actions of local authorities, because that's what the election campaign was focussed upon. Go and read the sources and see what this subject actually is. And please also read Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Editing policy, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very common term here in Blighty. As a leftie myself, not one I like, but it's very common and a term people would look up. See these 2,760 news articles for some further ideas should anyone feel the urge to make this a better article. Am a bit too busy today or else I'd do it. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - simple Googling on "loony left" and "looney left" shows how widespread and a part of the British political vernacular this term was and still is. Nick Cooper (talk) 10:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a political pejorative phrase it is somewhat in the category of Political correctness in that no-one actually accepts that they are part of such movement, but it was ubiquitous in discussions about politics of British local government for about a decade from the mid-1980s. It is capable of being more than a dictionary definition, and being developed into a discussion of how the phrase came to be used, whether some incidents were distorted in order to fit into a pattern, and also how the local authorities involved regarded the actions for which they were being criticised. In addition there is scope for discussion of how local authorities from the 1990s onwards sought to demonstrate that the label could not be applied to them. Sam Blacketer (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete partially per Gizza. The sources prove that the phrase exists but is it used enough to where it goes beyond WP:DICDEF? Removing the coatrack from the article leaves behind traces which exist in a classic WP:DICDEF stub and because of that, I am leaning towards "delete". Tavix | Talk 14:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you actually read the sources cited above, you will discover the answer to your question. And as I said, assertions of coatracking are not based in fact. From actually reading the sources you'll discover what this subject is — Hint: It's not the existence or meaning of a phrase. — and what can be written about it. Uncle G (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - What I got from this is that it is a phrase that refers to people of the political left. Since it is a phrase, what can be written about it that isn't a WP:DICDEF or doesn't tangent into discussing left-wing politics in general? The other direction I could see this becoming would be a list of people who have used the phrase or been refered to as such, but that really is just useless trivia. So then, how then can you make this an encyclopedic topic and not just a dictionary entry? Tavix | Talk 17:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - By noting, as I pointed out, that the subject here isn't a phrase. It's a political campaign. Don't go by the article. The article is a stub, and by definition neither complete nor comprehensive. Go by the sources, which actually have a fair amount of historical context. The discussions in the sources are far better than our article is. (It is, after all, just a stub.) And as Sam Blacketer points out above, the territory that they cover when discussing this subject is the territory of the history of politics and politicians, touching upon, as JzG points out above, Margaret Thatcher, Neil Kinnock, the Greater London Council, Militant Tendency, and others. This subject isn't a phrase; and using the sources cited above it doesn't expand into an article about a phrase, either. None of them are dictionaries, or books about language, note. They are books about politics. And they aren't even the only sources in existence. That's simply where I stopped looking. As I said, go and have a look at what sources exist on this subject, and what those sources say. You will discover the answers to your questions. Uncle G (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G. Thanks for clearing things up. Tavix | Talk 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - widely used in UK, becoming used in US. Bearian (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UncleG. Drmies (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep - deletion is not a solution to fixing the article. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - agree with Rocksanddirt and others. Article needs work, but keep. Dincher (talk) 20:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Uncle G and others. This is a notable part of British politics, and the article needs improving not deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of UK-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been a major term in British political discourse for almost thirty years, "crazy right", "wicked liberals", "loony Greens" have not been. Improvements are obviously needed.--SabreBD (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sourcing, and break out the WP:SNOW shovel already. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split up this content fork. This is a turn-of-phrase, not an encyclopedic topic. Wiktionary already covers it quite well as a term: wikt:loony_left. Spin out the well-written and well-sourced Baa Baa White Sheep topic off into it's own article, which it richly deserves. Otherwise this is a cobbled together content fork of Political correctness and the rest of the material should be merged there. If you want to write in a balanced manner about the perception and state of the Labour Party in the '80s, we already have History of the British Labour Party#The 1980s and United Kingdom general election, 1987#Campaign and policies. Fences&Windows 05:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into United Kingdom general election, 1987 or Weak Keep. It needs some work. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - "Loony left" was a heavily used concept regarding a certain faction in British politics in the 1980s. (There was even an American 60 Minutes piece entitled "Loony left" in 1987, but I can't find a transcript of that yet on the net.) --Oakshade (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh the weather outside is frightful,
But the fire is so delightful,
And since we've no place to go...
Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 22:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comparison with political correctness above. JQ (talk) 22:22, 14 October 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.