Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The "Bush"-Whacked Administration


 * 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 delete. -R. fiend 16:44, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

The "Bush"-Whacked Administration
Feels like blog spam Secretlondon 14:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not blog spam. I have gotten many requests from readers of our blog to make an entry on Wikipedia because so many of our readers use this website. We even have a link to Wiki on our blog page. There are also no ads on our blog and we do not earn any money from it. --KMuniz 15:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete blogspam. Don't know how the "many requests from readers" have come in but as of this moment there's exactly one comment on all the articles shown on the main blog page. Not indicative of a large readership. &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 15:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete... non-notable blog. Sorry if this hurts the bloggers feelings, but a blog has to be notable in some way to warrant an article.  0-4 posts in discussions per day, no mainstream media references, 57 hits on Google... almost no non-automatically-generated linkbacks... that just doesn't come close to the threshold for notability for me. --W.marsh 15:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. KHM03 17:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

'Sorry if this hurts the bloggers feeling'...nice, only a little insulting. How can something be notable if it can't be placed in an avenue that a lot of people view on a daily basis, I.E. Wikipedia. You place spam alongside advertising in your deletion policy, as I said, we do not earn any money from this site. It was created to be informative and generate discussion. Ans using comments to gauge readership is laughable...not everyone has the time to leave comments or want to leave a comment. The speed at which you decided to delete this page is incredible - have you ever considered leaving something online long enough to see if it generates any hits? And the comments from W.marsh are written in a very egotistical, self-satisfying way. --KMuniz 15:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

And just what is your 'threshold for notability' W. Marsh? --KMuniz 16:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not free advertising. The argument that "This page might be notable if Wikipedia publisizes it enough!" is not very good.  I really am not going to get into a flame war here though... KMuniz is welcome to stick around WP and realize a handful of bloggers try this every day and meet with about the same response. --W.marsh 16:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not free advertising. The argument that "This page might be notable if Wikipedia publisizes it enough!" is not very good.  I really am not going to get into a flame war here though... KMuniz is welcome to stick around WP and realize a handful of bloggers try this every day and meet with about the same response. --W.marsh 16:04, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

W. Marsh is taking things out of context as I was not implying that it should be advertising. And don't quote me if you are going to make up your own words - that's NOT a quote. The deletion policies for this website are convoluted and deceiving. 'Anyone can start an article', but only if it complies with the Deletion or Notable police.


 * Anyone can start an article. If other people disagree that it should have been started, then a debate ensues, and the person who started it gets the opportunity to explain why it should be included.  This is the process we are undergoing now.
 * The problem is that this is an encyclopedia. You cannot add your blog to an encyclopedia just because you think it should have lots of readers, any more than you can add a word you made up yesterday to a dictionary just because you think it should be part of the English language.  You need to find readers by other means: advertise on other blogs, or in web directories.  Write posts that everyone tracks back to.  Gain mindshare.  When you're well known, we'll be queuing up to write the article for you.  At present, however, your article falls into the situation where the vast majority of Wikipedia users will agree that it does not belong here.  Therefore it is likely to be deleted, not because we're trying to deceive you or because we're a police state, but simply because you have mistaken Wikipedia for something it isn't.
 * Our policies for deletion often seem convoluted to people who haven't bothered to find out what they are, but they are perfectly straightforward. You have already been referred to our page on what Wikipedia is not: I draw your attention to the fact that it is "not a web directory".  I will also refer you to our proposed guidelines for the inclusion of websites.  This suggests that "an article discussing a website should be able to demonstrate that the website has had some impact on people beyond its core user base", and proposes a number of criteria by which this can be judged.  Unfortunately your blog does not meet any of these criteria, so, until such a time as this ceases to be the case, the article should be deleted.
 * I'm sorry you've wasted your time in pursuit of a misunderstanding. Haeleth 16:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable blog.--Isotope23 18:12, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete NN blog. Privat  e   Butcher  18:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment KMuniz, I'm sorry your introduction to Wikipedia had to be this way. It seems to me that you created this article in good faith. Unfortunately, this is not the kind of thing that Wikipedia is for. I am also sorry that you had to come to AfD so soon -- Wikipedia is a very large site, gets a lot of contributions every day, and therefore has a large amount of these processes to go through. We all try our best to be polite, but we have a lot of work to do and our debates may seem short and unclear to those unused to them. Please try to understand that this isn't an attack on you or the website you have written about. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I too must vote Delete on this AfD. --Jacquelyn Marie 18:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per W.marsh. MCB 22:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN - 700 hits for a blog is a joke abakharev 08:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN --Rogerd 04:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

abakharev, you are a world class schmuck aren't you? I am sure the authors of Bush have worked hard on it. And you call it a joke. I am an avid reader of their site, and think this should have been kept...but I also understand Wiki's stance on blogs. All the same though, I don't think your comment was needed...


 * Comment. There is no content at present. Based on previous content, Delete. --Meiers Twins 18:36, 21 October 2005 (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.