Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Unalienable Right: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 18:59, 5 January 2006 editTapir (talk \| contribs)91 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit		Revision as of 02:40, 9 January 2006 edit undoCurps (talk \| contribs)52,628 edits →[]Next edit →
(22 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 10:		Line 10:
	* '''Delete'''. God bless ]'s anti-bloggery page. ]<small> ] ]</small> 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)		* '''Delete'''. God bless ]'s anti-bloggery page. ]<small> ] ]</small> 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
	*'''Delete''' non-notable. ]		*'''Delete''' non-notable. ]
			*'''Keep'''. The claim of only "five Google hits" is silly and obviously untrue (probably meant as an exaggeration not to be taken literally). If the Google search is refined to "The Inalienable Right"+"blog" for instance, you can see a far greater number of hits (references to the blog in the search output are relatively easily spotted by all three words being capitalized). Better yet, if you , you can see about 30,000 incoming links. There are a large number of links from other right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Rathergate (not linked from the blogroll, but linked from within individual blog entries). The characterization of this page as self-promotion also seems inaccurate, it appears to be a straightforward description of the blog. We don't delete articles on political grounds just because of their right-wing politics; although this is hardly an "A-list" blog it certainly appears to meet the minimum notability threshold. -- ] 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
			** Notice that it's the same sites linking to it over and over that's causing the hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.federalistjournal.com%2Ffedblog+-site%3Afederalistjournal.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-pull-web-t&b=91 ] 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
			***Not exactly, no. Yahoo truncates the listing after only 94 entries with the notice "we have omitted some entries very similar to the ones already displayed"; however they seem to do the truncation way too drastically and entirely omit entire sites. Just one example, well-known (notorious?) right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin links to them on at least two occasions: , but this doesn't show up at all in the above drastically truncated 94 entries. It's not clear why, but if you try an alternative search, , then you can discover many of those omitted incoming links (including the Malkin links). It's hardly surprising that the majority of incoming links come from fellow bloggers of a similar ideological bent, but that's true of pretty much every single blog in existence. Again, this is hardly an A-list blog, but it does seem to meet minimal notability and verifiability criteria and there is no indication of its article being self-promotion. -- ] 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
			* '''Comment''' Many of the above voters appear to be GNAA members or meatpuppets responding to Timecop's "]", who don't seem to do much on Misplaced Pages other than "warring on blogs" and engaging in minor pranks or vandalism (for instance, ] adding ]'s name to the ] ). Closing admin please take note. -- ] 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
			: No, what we have here is a non-notable political bullshit blog trying to increase pagerank by being in wikipedia. Nothing else. I could care less what party it belongs to, I don't give a slightest shit about politics. --] 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
			:: Belive it or not, ] actually '''is''' a big-bust model and performer. - ] 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
			:::Sure. And Timecop actually '''is''' dead, too , but in the time-honored tradition of dead people he's still voting anyway. -- ] 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:40, 9 January 2006

The Unalienable Right

Blogger self-promotion (the kind of thing Misplaced Pages could use less of); 124k Google hits, with about five that actually relate to aforementioned blog (Google test doesn't work here; the words are kind of in the ~~Constitution~~ Declaration of Independence) Hosterweis 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Delete. Vanity, blogcruft. Incognito 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. Another useless political blog spamvertisement. --Timecop 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable blog. -- (aeropagitica) UK 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete as blogcruft. Actually, the reference is to the Declaration of Independence not the Constitution. And all articles are not created equal, and are not endowed by their creator with any unalienable rights... Segv11 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, sorry. Got the two confused. Fixed now.Hosterweis 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - non-notable vanity - Femmina 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete - Vanity --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete. God bless User:Timecop's anti-bloggery page. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete non-notable. Tapir
Keep. The claim of only "five Google hits" is silly and obviously untrue (probably meant as an exaggeration not to be taken literally). If the Google search is refined to "The Inalienable Right"+"blog" for instance, you can see a far greater number of hits (references to the blog in the search output are relatively easily spotted by all three words being capitalized). Better yet, if you search Yahoo for "link:http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog −site:federalistjournal.com", you can see about 30,000 incoming links. There are a large number of links from other right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Rathergate (not linked from the blogroll, but linked from within individual blog entries). The characterization of this page as self-promotion also seems inaccurate, it appears to be a straightforward description of the blog. We don't delete articles on political grounds just because of their right-wing politics; although this is hardly an "A-list" blog it certainly appears to meet the minimum notability threshold. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
- Notice that it's the same sites linking to it over and over that's causing the hits: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=link%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.federalistjournal.com%2Ffedblog+-site%3Afederalistjournal.com&ei=UTF-8&fl=0&xargs=0&pstart=1&fr=FP-pull-web-t&b=91 Tapir 22:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
  - Not exactly, no. Yahoo truncates the listing after only 94 entries with the notice "we have omitted some entries very similar to the ones already displayed"; however they seem to do the truncation way too drastically and entirely omit entire sites. Just one example, well-known (notorious?) right-wing blogger Michelle Malkin links to them on at least two occasions: , but this doesn't show up at all in the above drastically truncated 94 entries. It's not clear why, but if you try an alternative search, searching Yahoo for "linkdomain:federalistjournal.com", then you can discover many of those omitted incoming links (including the Malkin links). It's hardly surprising that the majority of incoming links come from fellow bloggers of a similar ideological bent, but that's true of pretty much every single blog in existence. Again, this is hardly an A-list blog, but it does seem to meet minimal notability and verifiability criteria and there is no indication of its article being self-promotion. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment Many of the above voters appear to be GNAA members or meatpuppets responding to Timecop's "war on blogs", who don't seem to do much on Misplaced Pages other than "warring on blogs" and engaging in minor pranks or vandalism (for instance, User:Femmina adding User:Depakote's name to the List of big-bust models and performers ). Closing admin please take note. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

No, what we have here is a non-notable political bullshit blog trying to increase pagerank by being in wikipedia. Nothing else. I could care less what party it belongs to, I don't give a slightest shit about politics. --Timecop 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Belive it or not, User:Depakote actually is a big-bust model and performer. - Femmina 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. And Timecop actually is dead, too , but in the time-honored tradition of dead people he's still voting anyway. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)