Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Betsy's Page


 * 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 of the debate was Move and Keep, I think. humblefool&reg;Deletion Reform 23:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Betsy's Page
Delete Appears to be nn vanity. Icelight 17:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC) I vote against deletion. -- Joanne Jacobs
 * Delete blogcruft. sigh.  Friday 17:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete' Bleh --malathion talk 19:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete Betsy Newmark. I swear that I did not post this myself.  This was NOT a vanity post.  Someone else wrote it and I thank them.  There are plenty of Wikipedia entries on bloggers and I don't see why mine shouldn't be among them.  Check out some of the other entries under Bloggers and you'll see that this is a typical description of a blogger. Thank you for your consdideration.  My Background 18:43, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless reasons why this is a particularly notable blog are shown. Dcarrano 00:36, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

I also vote against deletion. This is blog is notable for her iconoclasm, wit, and insight.

Do not Delete People who are so quick to urge deletion have obviously not read her site much. Betsy may not be shy, but she is hardly so insecure as to post a vanity listing on Wikipedia.

I vote against deletion. I get so much out of reading Betsy's Page and think her blog deserves the recognition. -- Crystal


 * Delete It's not a vanity, and Betsy deserves an article because she's well-known and well-regarded amongst the major conservative blogs I frequent, but this article doesn't say anything that doesn't sound like the generic fawnings of a generic fan of a generic blog. Add to that it makes it look like shameless family promotion, when in fact a regular reader should find the associations to be substantive with respect to her commentary.  As long as deletion allows someone to subsequently come back and actually write something informative, I say delete until then. -- Chris Culbertson - 04:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep- site gets over 4000 visits according to TruthLaidBear rating. I have heard of this blog and have visited there although it isn't a site I regularly visit. Capitalistroadster 05:15, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

PULEEZE... what standards are being applied here? She is not writing about her sex life and her dog... she aggregates information, provides commentary and relevant links, focuses mostly on politcal issues, and does so with a high degree of wit and erudition. There is a personal touch also... but, I submit, no more so... and easier to endure... than Dan Rather's describing his wife's mastery of "Texas tact" as having learned how to french kissing a guy who chews tobacco...
 * Delete this is not encylopedic. Nothing in the keep votes so far attempts to establish notability or any reason for someone to think this might be encylopedic.  Vegaswikian 07:34, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I vote against deletion. Betsy's iconoclastic blog allows me to see what's going on in politics and education in a new, better-informed light. She has a wonderfully independent way of looking at things that brings me back to her blog at least several times a day. She is, to my mind, one of the top three bloggers on the planet--and believe me, I read a LOT of blogs. --Barb Oakley


 * Delete. Not encyclopedic. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Non-notable, sockpuppets and/or meatpuppets should learn to stay away. Xoloz 16:28, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
 * e.g. Note that all of the "Keep" votes except for one have been made by either anon IP addresses or user's first posts. Icelight 00:01, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Strong Against Deletion - space is not a problem, so what's wrong with having entries that are relatively minor in import? Like it or not, Betsy's Page is an excellent example of the blog as citizen journalism. She is a regular poster, and has demonstrated the utility of blogs by her fisking of Kerry's Daniel Webster quote. [Linda F, Right As Usual, http://rightasusual.blogspot.com]
 * Delete. Not terribly notable. Nandesuka 20:44, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - Rather than asked to stay away, new users who have been pointed here are invited to make themselves familiar with Wikipedia's Policies and Guidelines and, in particular, Deletion policy. In short, we are not voting on whether Betsy is interesting, witty, popular or capable. We are voting on whether an article about her blog could be encyclopedic, based on verifiability, neutrality, and notability. Dystopos 00:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and Redirect to Betsy Newmark. She seems to be borderline notable as a blogging teacher, (five time winner of a national teacher award, etc.) and is frequently referenced by conservative blogs. In my opinion this is more defensible as a biographical article than an article about the blog. I don't see that either is especially notable, but as long as it's NPOV and verifiable, (which it is, after I cleaned out the vanity and expanded the article) I have no problem with the content. Dystopos 01:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The references furnished below are convincing as to Newmark's notability. Dystopos 02:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The blog is notable enough that in the last couple of days alone it has been featured on the cover of Washington Post Magazine (here)and on CNN (here).  Should such evidence of "notableness" be included in the article? - David M
 * Yes, noteworthy events that contribute to notability are encyclopedic. Dystopos 02:07, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (so added)


 * Keep Definitely notable enough. --Grpunkim 19:31, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and Redirect to Betsy Newmark.) Reasonably popular blog with consistent content that's been covered in other media; could be a future newsmaker with political commentary and analysis, in which case a Wikipedia bio entry will be a useful reference. Gojomo 21:33, 2005 July 21 (UTC)
 * Keep, redirectTimmybiscool 22:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rename --  The Time Killer


 * 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.