Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bands Against Bush


 * 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   no consensus. Cirt (talk) 07:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bands Against Bush

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not sure what to make of this. It was previously deleted as WP:CSD. I think it does assert significance, though it looks like a soapbox to me. The thing was recreated by a single edit account with the edit summary, (Previous Deletion was not in interest of wikipedia and only conducted for Revisionist conservatism to bolster failed Bush legacy). Be that as it may, there are 26 deleted edits. I'd have deleted myself except for the 66 google news hits and the 400 unique google web hits. Whether or not the subject "has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" is the question. The article is not really coherent as it sits, and I'm not convinced of the group's notability. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To see the article at it's best, I have undeleted the deleted edits and restored the  best version I can find. Cheers,   Dloh  cierekim  03:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - how updated is the page, considering the external link is an archive to 2006. Is this movement even happening anymore?--Truco 03:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Too true. Maybe it should say was a group. Their effort seems moot now, as his term is days away from expiring.  Dloh  cierekim  03:25, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * comment- I found some sources out there, but i'm not sure how reliable they are by wiki standards. Here's a few:, , , and . On the basis of these at least, I'm voting weak keep. But that may change depending on the judgment of whether or not those sources are viable. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment--Any connection with Rock Against Bush? --Jmundo (talk) 06:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, more comments than votes. Don't think so, they at least have a discograpghy.  Dloh  cierekim  14:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep - sadly, this movement seems to have received a disproportionate amount lot of press attention, and thus satisfies WP:Notability. However, remove the decidedly non-neutral language from the article. If this movement comes to nothing in 4 years (which seems likely), I should think it might be worthy of deletion at that point. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per WP:NTEMP, if the article meets the notability standard now, it will continue to do so in the future. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Weak delete for now; if more coverage surfaces, then open to recreation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Doesn't assert its own notability, and looks like a soapbox rather than a legitimate article.  Hard to see how it will have any lasting notability, which is precisely what notability requires.  Xihr  00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - sources exist to assert notability in the usual jargon. WP:N is the sensible guide, which makes it an easy keep.  No reason to be exceptional here. Wily D  21:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Magog the Ogre and WilyD. Notable per WP:MUSIC because of extensive press coverage. Bearian (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.