Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mootstormfront


 * 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 keep.  howch e  ng   {chat} 07:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mootstormfront
Article was tagged for speedy deletion, but it doesn't qualify. No Vote --Jaranda wat's sup 20:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A request, next time could you please list the given reason for speedying, so us AfD monkeys have something to work from? Reason for speedy deletion was given as "Self-promotional, does not assert notability (CSD-7) and currently non-existent site".
 * The website given is currently offline, and according to the article has been for several months. The site's only claim to fame is trying to act as a counterbalance to Stormfront. Google has 46,200 hits for mootstormfront, of which 113 are unique, most dealing with forum posts and internet link-directory lists (We're the second hit, right after the defunct website itself). I make no claim or disclaimer as for how many of these are pages internal to the website itself. I'm actually going to go weak keep on this one, pending an assertation that this website had a decent-sized impact before it was pulled down. Saberwyn - The Zoids  Expansion Project 20:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep seems important. -- JJay 22:22, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a defunct minor website. Their goals are commendable, but unfortunately it does not appear to have had any impact. Flyboy Will 00:44, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was the party responsible for the Speed-delete tag. Like Flyboy above (who is not related to me, really!), I think the site's aims may have been worthwhile, but that in and of itself doesn't qualify for encyclopedic entry. There are many, many, many (active) forums of all sorts on the Internet which have significantly more notability, and very few of which are being promoted through Wikipedia. This particular one has not been referenced by any verifiable source outside of other similar forums. It's defunct, and may never return. Wikipedia is not the place to be providing promotional space for just any organization/group/forum. For specific reference, see: Notability  guidelines for Web sites. —LeFlyman 02:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Mootstormfront is well known for being Stormfront's anti-racist counterpart. True, the site is currently down, but according to its members it should be back up. Websites and forums sometimes have technical difficulties, and the site being temporarily down is no reason to get rid of the article. --Gramaic | Talk 03:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I understand that as the original author of the entry, you have an interest in seeing it saved from deletion; please don't take it personally. However, can you legitimately say that it meets any of these guidelines for a Web site entry, as noted above:
 * Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
 * A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community;
 * Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better. (Alexa Traffic Rank for mootstormfront.org: 1,641,169)
 * —LeFlyman 04:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Websites don't cease to be notable just because they go off line, any more than books cease to be notable when they go out of print. However, if the site does not come back shortly perhaps the material should be merged into Stormfront (online site) and the existing article made into a redirect. It'd be easy to restore it when the time comes. -Willmcw 04:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, however, the article could use cleaning up. - MootStormFront is known amongst anti-racist activists on the web, and is generally considered a failed effort. Synapse 01:25, 30 December 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.