Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler

scrat pad
The following is just my refactoring of the discussion for thinking purposes, and doesn't represent anything else. - brenneman (t) (c)  05:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

from main page

 * Alexa 110,245, 0 google news, nn/vanity/advertisement Skrewler 13:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete (didn't say so, bu implied)[
 * Most of this user's contributions are to delete blog-related articles. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I wrote this article and I'm politically liberal. In fact, I was thrown off the site for making fun of the loony megaconservatives there, and I still say the article should stay. Why? It's a BIG blog with LOTS of users. It's not just Misha and George. There are a ton of people there. Furthermore, this blog is an excellent place to go to put one's finger on the pulse of the ultraconservative wing of the American population. --Caspian 03:37, 25 November 2005 (EST)
 * nothing WP:CITEd to show well known
 * He said it's a big blog with a lot of users. Are you saying AfD votes are now invalid if you don't cite external sources? Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Femmina 13:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * naked vote.
 * Most of this user's contributions are to delete blog-related articles. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. nn. --supers 14:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of this user's contributions are to delete blog-related articles. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is another one of those vanity political blog entries just trying to push their point of view on everyone else. --Timecop 14:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of this user's contributions are to delete blog-related articles. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, another non-notable political blogger. Andrew Levine 21:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * nothing really given as a reason by these two... but de facto per nom
 * Keep, this is a well-known blog among conservatives. Rhobite 03:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * nothing WP:CITEd to show well known
 * Very hypocritical to strike through my vote but accept "nn" as a valid reason. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, some people don't have a lot of tolerance for different opinions, eh? ;) --Daniel11 02:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * nothing WP:CITEd, almost naked vote as doesn't even refer to article
 * Delete, falls below the notability threshhold. Eusebeus 09:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Most of this user's contributions are to delete blog-related articles. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Website Guideline #3 of WP:WEB, #1 and #2 are unlikely to have been reached so, I didn't bother checking. WP:WEB isn't an official policy yet, but that standard or somewhere in the neighborhood of it (maybe 20 or 30k on Alexa) makes sense. Auto-change my vote to Weak Keep if a surge of rabid Anti-Idiotarians come on there and boost the notability up to "acceptable", since my personal opinion is that it isn't really notable for anything so far irregardless of policy. Karmafist 17:01, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity/Self-promotion entry. User:Anak-Aht 04:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * This user has only 4 other edits, none of them useful. Rhobite 19:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)