Deletion of Kevin Rudd behavioural and personality related controversies

Comment: SALT, and maybe block the article creator. Pure  violation, created just to attack another human being, and is utterly disgraceful
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP)

Comment: WP:COATRACK, , , the list goes on
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: Massively non-neutral and a serious violation of . I agree that the closing admin should also consider whether Beaglepack's editing rights should be suspended given their apparent cluelessness about . The issues around Rudd's conduct are a significant aspect of his political career, but need to be presented in context and be referenced to high quality sources. This article is largely dependent on claims by Rudd's political opponents
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:BLP)

Comment: Major  and  violation
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:NPOV)

Comment: Looks can be very deceiving, as this "article" relies on unbalanced, extremely bias analyses and tittle-tattle from Rudd's political enemies within his own party, as well as the opposing party's (Liberal Party) campaign team. A big 'no no'. The article is completely negatively skewed, and reads as an attack page. In breach of  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:BLP)

Comment: and  close) - I don't actually mind that this was brought to AFD. It means there is a fast-built, solid and established consensus to fall back on if rubbish like this gets recreated. The article itself is a miserable breach of both  and  as suggested above
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW||WP:BLP||WP:ATTACK)