RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Scott Ludlam
Scott Ludlam | Result: Keep[edit]
- Scott Ludlam – (View log)
Delete[edit]
- Fanpage of a politician without any apparent mission relevance. ZooGuard (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Keep[edit]
- Seems like the guy is on point about things and a well-written article (the current version is a poorly-put-together piece of shit) would be missional. It would do a lot to move RW away from its US-centricity to have articles onthe Dennis Kuciniches of the rest of the Anglophone world. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dude's fight against stupidity is actually pretty good and I think missional - David Gerard (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ey Cømrade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 21:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
- Dare I say it? It could do with being a bit more neutral. He's not the Messiah. But I think he can stay on our pages. Spud (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Goat[edit]
While the article appears to be on mission, to me it reads like a rather sycophantic fanboy page (and the "SRSLY!"-stunt in the photo makes Ludlam look more like a pupil passing around notes during class than a serious politician). Could use a do-over by someone who's familiar with politics down under but not in awe about everything this guy does. Currently, the article reads like some of the more dewy eyed depictions of the Green Party in the UK. My more cynical side is sorely tempted to ask: If they (or Ludlam) are so fantastic, how come they've had so little success in getting people to vote for them? ScepticWombat (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
- If your (somewhat mainstream) political boogeyman of choice is so bad, why do people vote for them? PacWalker 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
4 for keep, 1 for kill. Archive time? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)