Talk:Labour Party proxy and undeclared donations (2007)
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Labour Party proxy and undeclared donations (2007) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
Candidate for deletion?
editAlthough there is a tendency among lazy journalists to attach the suffix '-gate' to any story which is remotely scandalous, I wonder whether on this particular occasion the media really has referred to the present story as "Donorgate". I would argue that it has not become a popular name for it.
Perhaps I am in a minority in this view? If not, I would recommend deletion of this page.
Informed Owl 11:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl
- I agree that the "gate" thing is tired and stupid. We should only have an article called "donorgate" if the term is being widely used. If there is a better article on this subject it could be redirected there. --DanielRigal 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Currently, most of the content of this article is a direct cut-and-paste from the David Abrahams (Labour party donor) article. Obviously, this is a problem - amongst other things, it violates GFDL attribution requirements. If this article is not drastically rewritten, it should probably be nominated for deletion. Terraxos 13:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, having started this, I don't actually know how to mark articles for deletion! Terraxos also makes a good point, so this should perhaps be done now. Informed Owl 18:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Informed Owl
- Actually, on second thoughts, I'm not sure this needs to be deleted - the duplicated material has been removed from the David Abrahams (Labour party donor) article, so we don't still have the same information in two places. In that case, I think this is acceptable - just so long as it's clear as it was originally forked from that article. Terraxos 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I created this page because there was no central record of all the ins and the put of the scandal, which meant that it was harder for wikipedia users to find all the info when they had to go trawling across the site. And yes, for ease I copied some text from the Abrahams site becasue I didnt have time to write new copy and I knew other faithful wikiusers would improve the page for me. I think this page is vital to documenting an extraordinary time in British politics. Mindstar (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I still think it should be renamed as I have not heard the phrase "Donorgate" used at all. How about "Labour Party anonymous donor scandal (2007)"? I think that is more descriptive. "Donorgate" can become a redirect. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Poor title
editThe title urgently needs changing as it is POV and uninformative.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)