Talk:Gillian Duffy (Labour Party)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Gillian Duffy (Labour Party) redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

This orphaned talk page, subpage, image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia.
If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.

This article was nominated for deletion review on 18 August 2010. The result of the discussion was Redirect to United Kingdom general election, 2010#April.

Do not delete

Please do not delete this talk page, although it has no corresponding article. It has been blanked for privacy reasons, but records in the history the discussion which reached a consensus that Wikipedia should not have an article, or a redirect, at this title. JohnCD (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Records the consensus? That's got to be some kind of joke right? There isn't even a current bar to full recreation of the artticle that this redirect shoud actually be pointing to, because the original deletion was such an out of process joke, so this 'declaration' rather massages the facts. MickMacNee (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

I will say I don't see a consensus for deletion and in any case, RfD would have been the right place for the discussion. Nor in fact do I see any reason to blank this talk page as there is nothing covered there that isn't in the election article. John, could you explain? Hobit (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The redirect was first deleted and salted, with general agreement, after this AN/I discussion. The point then was to get it off the screen quick for BLP reasons. When requests were made to reinstate it, I asked at AN/I here for comment on whether protection should be continued, and the discussion on this talk page produced 7 against a redirect and 7 for. In the earlier discussion there had also been 3 against and 1 for who were not counted on this page; not a huge majority but enough to persuade Martin, who closed the discussion, that there was not consensus to overturn the decision. I blanked this page for the same privacy reasons that led me to delete the redirect. Let's not re-hash it all yet again here - let Mick's DRV take care of it. JohnCD (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to rehash it here either, but it needs pointing out here that the supposed consensus to delete on those ANI threads is based on such gems of pure divination as "Classic WP:NOTNEWS; this will be forgotten in day or two". Ongoing coverage has shown this sort of opinion to be worthless, as was obvious at the time if rationally judging the reactions of reliable commentators, rather than simply counting up the emotional reactions of editors. MickMacNee (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The perception of "ongoing coverage" does not erase privacy concerns, nor does it erase the core of why WP:BLP1E exists in the first place. Many editors disagree with your opinions on these two matters, and despite what you may believe, these disagreements aren't based on "emotional reactions", but our interpretations of policy, guidelines, and our opinions as to what this encyclopedia should and should not cover. It would help the discussion greatly if you could stop disparaging others because you disagree with them. You started the DRV guns blazing, which didn't help at all. Tarc (talk) 14:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This post is ironic to say the least. Unless you've had a change of heart recently. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As your position seeks to harm a person seeking privacy, I'd answer "not really, no". Tarc (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as she proveably isn't seeking privacy in the way BLP intends to protect, and the presented scenarios for harm have been far fetched to say the least, I'd have to say, 'lol wut?'. MickMacNee (talk) 15:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And as she proveably isn't seeking privacy" is your opinion, not fact. That you keep interchanging the two is the primary source of the fanaticism regarding this topic. That is the last I have to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe this is continuing, poor mrs duffy even the prime minister that was involved is forgotten about. There is likely to be even less support for this than there was at the time. Off2riorob (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An opinion based on facts Tarc. Facts like, say, oh, months after the incident, for example, she is attending Labour party events as guest of honour, giving newspaper and television interviews, meeting with the next Labour leader so he can publcy get her endorsement. That was discoverable with a very short search, heaven knows what else she's been up to. Not fanaticism, reality. I'm perfectly fine with you trying to paint this as mere 'opinion', it gives me some prescious light relief on what is an overall boring day for me tbh. And Rob, the fact that she has gotten more media coverage in the months after the election than Brown, says something about her notability. Was it you who was saying nobody would be wanting to know about her after a week? MickMacNee (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Has she? Meeting the new labour leader and going to the conference, no one tells me anything. I am more against it than I was at the time, imo we and our readers are losing nothing by not having a BLP in her name. I am stuck in this groove now, it would take an independent secondary notable claim in her life to get me out of it. Yes, I know it says continued coverage, and there may well have been a bit but I stumble around the Internet news and none of it has appeared in my vision. Off2riorob (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should redirect to United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010#Bigotgate

Needs a more specific redirect. Harry ^{Let us have speaks} 17:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested edit

This edit request to Gillian Duffy has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the text in Gillian Duffy from:
#REDIRECT [[United Kingdom general election, 2010#April]]
to:
#REDIRECT [[United Kingdom general election, 2010#Bigotgate]]
for better focus.
--Penbat (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Gillian Duffy (editor) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 30 November 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Redirect the page to 2010 United Kingdom general election instead, to fix a double. SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 17:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 15:36, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]