Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia's article on George W. 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 of the debate was closer's choice. Okay, not really ;-)

There is clearly no consensus to delete the content. However, those who did want it kept outright often displayed a preference to have the article moved the hell out of the main article namespace, either to Wikipedia: or Talk:. There was also a strong contingent indicating a wish to merge it with the Wikipedia article.

So, what I'm going to do is move it to a subpage of Talk:George W. Bush, then delete the redirect. Anyone planning a merge will still be able to access the content from its new location. It may be necessary to leave a note at Talk:Wikipedia explaining where the merged content comes from, for GFDL purposes; IANAL. The article can now be found at Talk:George W. Bush/Wikipedia. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on George W. Bush
I have a feeling this may be a controversial debate, but it shouldn't be. The relevant guideline is Avoid self-references, which states that "self-references are entirely acceptable on talk pages or in the Wikipedia namespace, but they are inappropriate in articles." This is clear, and it's right. This article is about internal matters, not Wikipedia's role in the outside world, and thus is not comparable to articles like Wikipedia or Larry Sanger. Chick Bowen 17:08, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, coverage by the New York Times makes it relevant to the outside world. Kappa 17:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Should be merged with Bush's talk page and some of the older entries on that archived if necessary. Any media links should go there as well. Merge with talk page. Capitalistroadster 17:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per CR. One NYT article is insufficient grounds to push this into its own article.  Eusebeus 18:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or summarize and merge with Wikipedia; it is somehow relevant to the article on the wikipedia that the New York Times devoted an article to a single Wikipedia article. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Many articles have received media coverage. Having media coverage discussing article X does not create an argument for having an article "Wikipedia's article on X." &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to George W. Bush or something similar. Articles on Wikipedia articles have absolutely no place in the main namespace. However, the Wikipedia namespace can contain pretty much anything it wants about Wikipedia itself. &mdash; J I P  | Talk 18:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge as appropriate. Self-reference should be avoided unless 100% necessary, and this is not.  We have many popular and controversial articles, there's no need to have articles describing the history of each one.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge or move... somewhere. I agree that this shouldn't be in the main namespace. That doesn't mean we have to lose the work altogether. But as to what other place to send it to, not sure.  Jacqui ★ 19:02, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Wikipedia. The only place were self-reference is useful/allowable. - Mgm|(talk) 21:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research or merge to talk page as above. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] (W) AfD? 22:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the content, we're through the looking glass. I don't know if that Avoid self-references really applies here. The article does not reference itself, but rather a different article. That is, it does not use any self-reference terms. But it is cutting it close, so I have no prejudice against a move/merge as suggested above. -maclean25 00:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete from the main namespace and put somewhere else. Incestuous, self-referential. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikipedia: namespace - can you imagine having an article on the Encyclopedia Britannica article on any subject? "The Encyclopedia Britannica article on World War II is the longest article in the Encyclopedia, coming in at (x) thousand words. It has been substantially rewritten in each edition of the encyclopedia..." Nope. BD2412  T 03:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just as a matter of curiosity... how long is it? The article "Bible" in the 11th edition occupies pp. 849-894 = 45 dense pages, about 8K per page = half a megabyte, and that doesn't even include "Bible, English." Dpbsmith (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Move to George W. Bush or a subpage of Talk:George W. Bush. Avoid self-references absolutely does apply; "self" refers to Wikipedia as a whole.  Don't leave a redirect from the article namespace. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Cryptic's point on the importance of not redirecting from the main namespace to another namespace. I should have mentioned that in the nomination.  Chick Bowen 22:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete from the main namespace; it doesn't matter that much to me where it goes, if anywhere. This is a prime example of the need to avoid self-references. --Metropolitan90 08:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Wiki-vanity. CalJW 13:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Avoid self-references --JiFish(Talk/Contrib)
 * Thanks to User:Chick_Bowen for pointing out that I didn't sign the above. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete An interesting article, to be sure, but irrelevant in Wikipedia's pursuit to creating an encyclopedia. This article will have no currency in one year, never mind ten years. D e nni &#9775;  03:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * i be lookin at it now 2601:447:D183:60E0:701B:F06E:3A74:8332 (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove from main article namespace: either move to WP namespace or delete. -Sean Curtin 02:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete or move to Wikipedia namespace. MCB 07:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mgm. -- JJay 05:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep if NPOV. As Wikipedia becomes more and more important, warranting academic research on its phenomena, so does many aspects of our culture become notable and valid for encyclopedic articles. The rule of no self-references might have been useful once, but maybe it is time to revise it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But what's next? Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia's article on Wikipedia? This could be a slippery slope. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:27, 27 November 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.