Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turn Your Back on Bush

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. Joyous 23:05, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

Turn Your Back on Bush
Not worth having as a separate article. Add the link to the website to the George W. Bush article and redirect this there. 172.172.35.229 21:33, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to be a large, organised protest. 7m hits in Google Jasoncart 21:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * This user wrote the article. 172.172.35.229 21:53, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Also being a bit disingenuous by not using quotes in the search. However, "Turn Your Back on Bush" still turns up 17,900 Google hits .  I think that makes this worth keeping, if it can be expanded in encyclopedic fashion.  Trouble is, I'm not sure it can be &mdash; other than "This is a protest wherein people turn their backs on President Bush," is there anything noteworthy to say about it?  Delete unless someone can expand it to show that there is. Shimeru 22:44, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't mean to be misleading with my Google hits figure. 7m is incorrect, the 17.9k search is better for validating the article's notability. Jasoncart 23:32, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh, I mean delete... the usual unbelievable vanity... Phils 22:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alleged protest movements don't have the potential to be encyclopedic unless there is evidence of an actual movement -- meaning more than a web site.  Four students turning their backs at a graduation ceremony is an incident, not a movement.  --BM 22:30, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's made the news, it should have it's own piece on Wikipeida .  Googling it gave over 10 pages of results. It's a no-Brainer really, it has to stay. --Is Mise le Méas, Irishpunktom 22:34, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment. This IMO does sound interesting though. Aside: once again the difference between a non and a double quoted google search is huge. In that case a no-db-quote, is meaningless for words are too common. Now try a "Turn Your Back on Bush" -> 17000 hits. So there _is_ something here. It definitely looks like add for their jan 2005 appeal, but can we ignore it ? Gtabary 22:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How about when they get 10000 people to turn their back on Bush duing his Inauguration Day ceremony, then we put them in. Delete, but kindly, as I think any group which could manage to do that would deserve an entry. hfool/Wazzup? 23:39, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Dlete. Mikkalai 00:04, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, media coverage and many Google hits. That makes it borderline notable enough for inclusion. Megan1967 01:28, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Occasional signs of barely surviving freedoms in America should certainly be highlighted. -- Simonides 01:33, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - no evidence of much of anything. Making the news is not enough to get in Wikipedia, otherwise I could write about car pileups. -- Cyrius|&#9998; 03:30, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I certainly wish them well, but I'm not sure that this has more notability than walking into the draft office, singing a chorus of "Alice's Restaurant" and walking out. I would prefer to see this information yoked with other protests, and especially student protests, in a logical article where things not sufficiently notable in isolation can be spoken of in toto, but I don't know what such an article is.  (Even mooning Bush, so to speak, doesn't seem to make a difference, as the man is kept behind a sanitary cordon at all times so that he never sees demonstrators.  Since he doesn't read newspapers or watch the news, nothing can affect the man in the high castle.)  Geogre 04:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it really does get 10,000 people involved on January 20, that will be different, but at a current tally of four it's not a keeper, it's just a political advertisement. You can get anything you want ta da da da da da... Andrewa 04:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm torn; like Andrew above, four people wouldn't be notable unless it received a lot of attention, but 10,000 definitely would be. So I'd need to see some evidence that the group really has thousands of members/participants or that it has received a lot of news coverage. No vote, but leaning towards keep. Everyking 04:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles mentioning these particular protests (turning one's back on a given signal during the inauguration) in Reuters and CNN, international news reporting organizations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:35, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I gather a lot of Wikipedians don't like Bush, but those opinions shouldn't be relevant here. I think there's an important principle at stake, so at the risk of being provocative, let me ask those voting keep a question: If instead of being anti-Bush, this was a proposed demonstration by a racist group (or something similar that you don't personally like), and consisted so far only of a four-person incident and some Internet and news coverage, should we have a article on that? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think this campaign will change the world a lot, but I fear it compromises Wikipedia significantly. No change of vote. Andrewa 21:44, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * There's an answer to that: In Britain, however, during the same year as the first American anti-disco demonstrations, see below, The Young Nationalist publication of the British National Party reported that "disco and its melting pot pseudo-philosophy must be fought or Britain's streets will be full of black-worshipping soul boys," though this had been true for twenty years with many white male English teens considering themselves "soul freaks". -From Disco. An encyclopedia records the views of racists too. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:46, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here we have an article dedicated to this particular planned protest, whose title is an anti-Bush slogan. You're comparing it to a section of an article, with a neutral section heading. But is there perhaps a better comparison? Andrewa 03:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's just a quibble, really. You ask whether an article about a protest on grounds not favored by those who vote for this one should be kept. The article must have a provocative name and the protest must have received equivalent publicity.  I don't know whether such an article has ever existed, but if it did I don't see why it should be deleted. Since I have no reason to believe that Wikipedians are particularly opposed to Bush or are in the habit of letting their personal political views influence their votes on VfD I concentrated on demonstrating that Wikipedians do represent unpopular views fairly.  --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thanks for clarifying that. To you it may be a quibble, but IMO your first reply didn't answer the question at all, and this now does. My reason for thinking that a significant number of Wikipedians must have an anti-Bush bias is that I'm still struggling to understand why anyone would vote to keep what looks to me to be a blatant piece of political advertising. This is not a criticism, it's an honest question. All the article says so far is that four unnamed students have protested in this way, and that an unnamed person is organising a much bigger demonstration in three weeks' time, and that some websites exist to promote the plan. As for the press services (which confirm this), I think they set the bar a bit lower than we should. But if others disagree with this, that's fine. Andrewa 19:14, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, if Tony is correct in his claim that Reuters and CNN have both covered this, which isn't true for most auto accidents (and for those which are covered thusly, we should have an article). Also, if the same were true of a KKK rally or the like, I would vote the same way. Tuf-Kat 22:33, Dec 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that I should support my claim. CNN, Reuters. I expect that there are others but those two did it for me. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. `JuntungWu 03:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep! Neutralitytalk 03:45, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep and allow for organic growth/expansion. GRider\talk 23:35, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Andre ( talk ) 21:30, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I oppose political vanity articles more than anybody, but this artle has potential (and so far is) encyclopedic. Brownman40 05:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I think it's notable that though mostly kow-towing to Bush, the mainstream media has made some reports on this movement, more than they did for Not in Our Name and Code Pink and the A.N.S.W.E.R. coalition Pedant 01:30, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.