Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unalienable Right

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. — JIP | Talk 11:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unalienable Right

Blogger self-promotion (the kind of thing Wikipedia 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)[reply]

Delete. Vanity, blogcruft. Incognito 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another useless political blog spamvertisement. --Timecop 07:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable blog. -- (aeropagitica) 07:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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 ^{(talk/contribs)} 07:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, sorry. Got the two confused. Fixed now.Hosterweis 07:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable vanity - Femmina 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Vanity --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. God bless User:Timecop's anti-bloggery page. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Tapir
Delete Notable? I think not. Jmax- 19:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC) User had 3 edits before this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes[reply]
Delete nn blogcrap. Eusebeus 19:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as non-notable vanity. Ajwebb 22:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Hosterweis says, this is precisely the kind of thing Wikipedia could do with massively less of. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although I'm sure the US Constitiution never uses unalienable. It's inalienable. This is blatant non-notable advertising. Dan 22:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The US Constitution doesn't use it at all, believe it or not. It's in the Declaration of Independence though, where it really is "unalienable". You're right it ought to be "Inalienable rights", but it isn't. Segv11 ^{(talk/contribs)} 01:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC) User's only edits are to this recent blizzard of podcasting/blog "delete" votes and his/her talk page[reply]
Delete as non-notable weblog. http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/ has Alexa traffic rank of 2,470,548 (rank of 10,000 needed for website to be considered notable). —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-06 07:39Z
Keep. The article fits the category as well as the other articles in the category. To be consistent, you'd need to delete all of them or none. Simple fairness demands basic consistency. 71.137.119.209 22:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're workign on it. Please point out any "other articles in this category" which need to be deleted either on my talk page or [[1]]. --Timecop 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
  - 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: [2] [3], 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)[reply]

If you have to spend that much time proving notability, then it is definitely NOT notable. thanks. --Timecop 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No time at all. Two Yahoo searches, and the second one is only necessary because of what appears to be a bug in Yahoo's "linkdomain" functionality. -- Curps 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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 [4]). Closing admin please take note. -- Curps 01:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Sure. And Timecop actually is dead, too [5], but in the time-honored tradition of dead people he's still voting anyway. -- Curps 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Admins, there appears to have been some 'vote' rigging (not that it's exactly changed the course of the discussion) going on. See [6]. I'd like my vote put back, oh and changed to Extra, extra Delete. No, really, I just found that and didn't know how to fix it myself. Dan 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, I put them back - why curps would remove them, I don't know. He's usually a trusted administrator so I'm going to assume good faith that it was an accident. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh oh. It turns out I was editing Tapir's old version: see [7], namely his 18:59 5 January edit, and I obviously missed the "You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page" warning. My apologies, that really sucks. They really ought to make the out-of-date warning a lot more prominent, maybe change the background color or something, it's far too easy to miss. [I have now done just that, see below] Here's what happened: after I noticed Tapir's "MUSHROOMS ARE NOT FUCKING VEGETABLES YOU IGNORANT AMERICANS" edit at Pizza and making an edit there, I checked out his other contributions and found the "war on blogs" contributions. I clicked on diff to examine his edit, and then obviously clicked on "edit this page" at the top of the page and missed the "out-of-date" warning. By truly unfortunate coincidence, the last edit prior to mine turned out to be Tapir's second edit (22:19, 8 January 2006) to this page, so when I later clicked on the article history and found an edit by Tapir just before my own, everything appeared exactly as expected. Sorry about that, it was in no way intentional. -- Curps 23:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I have now made the "editing an out-of-date version" warning WAY more prominent (a standard messagebox rather than mere text). -- Curps 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Check it out:[reply]

WARNING:

You are editing an out-of-date revision of this page.

If you save it, any changes made since this revision will be removed.

- - - Comment - Placing your ugly template here is misleading for people who may want to continue to vote. Remove that and this comment please. -- Femmina 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.