Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fight Dem Back


 * 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 was keep. Mailer Diablo 08:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Fight Dem Back
Irrelevancy, FDB is a small group of students with a personal grudge against people with certain political affiliations. Their actions and lack of credibility don't warrant an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Merovingian (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. I don't think that opposing fascists and neo-Nazis constitutes a "personal grudge against people with certain political affiliations". The fact that the group claims activity in two countries (Australia and New Zealand) is a point in favor of their possible notability, but I will let editors more familiar with this group judge that point first. --Metropolitan90 04:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment. Their activity in NZ is limited to one or two semi-active members. It is more of a cult than a legitimate organisation. They are fairly despised by both anti-fa and left-wing groups alike due to their strange and more-often-than-not inappropriate tactics. The Merovingian


 * STRONG DELETE. Outside extreme left-wing organisations they are not generally known. I dont think they are worthy of note. Delos
 * ...Why are you bringing your personal bias into this? Ans e ll  06:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't see any support for the nominator's allegations about the group or its reputation. I'm aware of them as a leading opponent to the New Zealand National Front and the Australian Patriotic Youth League. They seem to be quite active and notable enough for an article. -Will Beback 05:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has vaule in an encyclopedia. It is an unbias article that contain factual information. This article also has notablilty because student interested in hate groups and racism can relate to this information. This in no way falls in the articles for deletion. Creating a harder than deleting 05:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Although FDB might not be that well-known or vitally important, there is still a role for the article. Anyone, for example, researching the contemporary history of anti-fascism in Australasia or in the free speech/hate speech debate would find it useful. However, it is important that the article is kept robust and NPOV. --BobFromBrockley 09:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 160 unique Googles attest to the difficulty of covering this neutrally from reliable sources. Nothing on Google News (although to be fair there's only on Gnews cite for the Anti Nazi League, but that scores many more unique ghits). A laudable enough aim, but this group is not yet of any provable significance. Just zis Guy you know? 13:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Change to neutral', article is being cleaned up, but it still looks like it has a way to go before it is fully sourced and verifiably neutral. Give the Aussie authors the benefit of the doubt for now and come back in a month or two to see how it's come on. Just zis Guy you know? 10:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete Seems mostly to be WP:POV as it is referenced by its own site (links 1,3,5 and 6),an abandoned blog by one of its members (2),and an article written by one of its members in a (possibly defunct) NZ student magazine. There is a link to an article on the Australia First Party site, but I'm not sure one (possibly not entirely unbiased) reference is enough to produce an NPOV article. There also seems to be evidence of a few revert wars which is normally a pointer to POV editing. That said, I think a bit of cleanup would save it. Yomangani 16:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - there's been some cleanup and external references added. I'd like to see a more rigourous treatment of the Criticism section and some references for the middle paragraph of the Politics section, but I don't believe this now merits a delete.

*Delete unless it can be drastically rewritten. The are no reliable sources for the article - it appears to be vancrufspamisment Keep per a couple of decent references being added WilyD 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Numerous articles in all major Australian newspapers, and most major NZ papers. Members have appeared on a number of television news reports, as well as A Current Affair and Today Tonight. I'd like to assume good faith on the part of wikipedian Delos' vote to delete, but according to the FDB website he once said he'd like to hang an FDB member or take him out into the desert and "peg him." Surely you must consider them somewhat notable if you have expressed a desire to kill them? Drett 16:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd also like to assume good faith on the part of the person nominating this for deletion, but it appears that their one other contribution to WP is a single piece of vandalism. Drett 17:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The best course of action then is to assess the article on its own merits, and ignore who is involved in the process. Whether the article is nominated for deletion by Jimbo Wales or 223.181.64.221 shouldn't affect the outcome, the deletion, retention or no decision should rest solely on the qualifications of the article. WilyD 17:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was merely making the point that the nomination may have been made in bad faith. To assess the article on it's merits: It would appear that the article refers to the group's website itself for trivial information on the group. It also refers to critics of the group for criticism - this seems reasonable.  Once it has been decided that this article should not be deleted, it would probably be a good idea to utilize the wealth of information printed on this group in the media to broaden the scope of the article.  This conference paper from the Queensland University of Technology may also be of use.
 * No, before it's decided whether or not to delete the article, these kind of references must be added, or the only appropriate conclusion is delete. The citations are all blogs (i.e. valueless) and the group's own website (equally valueless).  Essentially, there's no real evidence presented that the group even exists.  Whether the nomination is made in good, bad or indifferent faith is entirely irrelevent.  Rather than resort to personnal attacks against the nominator, instead argue the merits of the article.  If the article merits inclusion, the result of the debate will be keep.  Relying on a group's website for information is terrible, best illustrated by all the nominated band websites - for example, if you read my band's website, you would wrongly conclude that a) we exist, and b) we play music.  Without a real reference, the article fails WP:V, a non-negiotable policy of Wikipedia - and thus is deserving of deletion. WilyD 18:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I thought we couldn't edit while it was proposed for deletion... it just can't be blanked. Drett 18:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem - you're definitely allowed and encouraged to edit articles while they're up for deletion. Poorly written articles that need rewriting are oft times deleted when an overhaul is in order because overhauling an article is a lot of work.  WilyD 18:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, as WilyD says, you can certainly edit articles during an AFD, in fact lots of articles have been saved from deletion because the issues have been addressed during the discussion. If you have something to verifiable and NPOV to add, get in there. Yomangani 18:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There are articles from newspapers (such as The Australian and the Australian Jewish News) which discuss this group's activities in a general manner (as opposed to members commenting on incidents or issues) - however these articles are no longer available online from their original source, but have been copied onto the group's site verbatim. Is it acceptable to add these as references? Drett 18:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's acceptable, although obviously not preferred. See WP:CITE for details on quoting intermediate sources. Yomangani 20:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay... I added a bunch of references. They can be found online at:  and  Drett 23:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no doubt that this nomination for deletion is in bad faith, motivated by the fact that the nominator (203.89.173.120) is a New Zealand white supremacist/neo-nazi, who happens to be one of the investigative targets of FightDemBack.Schmoul Aschkenazi 01:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you could refrain from making personal attacks and stick to the issue of the article and whether it merits deletion, that'd be swell. There are places to resolve differences with other users - those places do not include AfD.  Thanks WilyD 01:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it a personal attack if the information is true? FDB are quite aware of the position of the neo-nazi at the cited IP and attempts to baselessly smear or defame the group in efforts to dilute the FDB message. Defaming FDB is their only defence- their politics are certainly indefensible. Schmoul Aschkenazi 21:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:ORG -- Librarianofages 02:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Serious? It passes both elements of WP:ORG: Inclusion in third party published materials. and A significant amount of media coverage that is not trivial in nature and that deals specifically with the organization as the primary subject. Drett 02:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article contains references and there are some references in the Australian media on their activities. They are verifiable and notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:ORG (which is a proposed guideline, not suitable as a sole reason for deletion), and cites media references to pass WP:V, WP:NOR etc. -- Wine Guy  Talk  01:47, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep subject of several media references in New Zealand and Australia. I am well aware of them and their activities seem notable enough for me. Notability, not credibility, is the issue here. Also, I don't put much cop in an unsigned AfD nomination, although this could have just been a mistake. --Canley 05:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The article passes all the major policies. Since when is a nominators personal dislike of a group a valid question. Also does not give the nominator much credibility not to sign the nomination. Ans e ll  06:42, 27 July 2006 (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.