Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormfront (website) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Speedy keep. This site is clealy notable. Its deletion outside of notability criteria is beyond the scope of AfD. You can either present immediate issues to the administrator noticeboard/s, or seek a special mandate from the Arbitration Committee or from members of the Foundation. El_C 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stormfront (website)
massive vandalism through sock/meat puppets (evidence provided), doesn't satisfy 'notability', article is an advertisement, discussion and arguments below Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Stormfront (website) wikipedia article has been embroiled in a massive edit war for several days. I uncovered evidence of sock puppetry/meat puppetry on a massive scale (see below). The editors continue to scrap other editors' contributions, including one with 11 cites that was claimed to be inappropriate due to "original research".

The article is, in my opinion, essentially being used as an extension of the Stormfront forums. There is only the weakest form of criticism permitted in the article. It has the look of a recruiting tool for the 'organization' including a link to a page where donations can be made.

The editors continue to reinsert a link to a donations page on the Stormfront website. There is no indication that Stormfront is a non-profit organization, a status that must be applied for and must meet rigorous requirements including rigid tax reporting requirements and fiscal spending constraints. At least, no one has alleged that it has such status and it is extremely doubtful that such an 'organization' would qualify.

The Stormfront forum also contains a post to recruit editors to 'keep an eye on' the Stormfront article dated September 14th: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:seUEv9D__TQJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Many new people began editing the Stormfront wiki article on sept 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&limit=250&action=history

User Brimba's user contributions page - began heavy editing of Stormfront article beginning Sept

15th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brimba

User Conserve's user contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited

Stormfront articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Conserve

User Magnetic's contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited Stormfront articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magnetics

User ExplicitImplicity's contributions page, created account Sept 11th, first edit was stormfront article on Sept 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=ExplicitImplicity

User Alecmconroy's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Alecmconroy

User UberCryxic's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept. 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=UberCryxic

Alecmconroy's talk page, showing solicitations from UberCryxic to assist in reverting pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=76349940

UberCryxic's talk page, showing messages from Alecmconroy discussing reversion strategy to avoid violating 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberCryxic&oldid=76147892

Poison sf is also in this group, I believe, and is the only one who has been editing since before September 11, 2006.Stick to the Facts 04:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not going to attempt to explain in how many ways this person's account of events is wrong, but I agree with the fundamental point that this article should be deleted.UberCryxic 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm not sure if I get a vote or not since I posted the tag, but...  As for notability - I also believe the article should be deleted on that basis.  Its 'notability' appears to stem merely from a concerted attack on a tv news dial in vote on whether or not people would want a segregated prom.  Ironically, people solicited voters on the Stormfront website and stuffed the ballot box so that the results were not announced and Stormfront was named as the culprit.  One or two pranks doesn't seem to satisfy notability.  It seems that most of the articles that are cited that are alleged to be about Stormfront are actually about Don Black.  Perhaps I'm wrong.  Stick to the Facts 05:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite The site is execrable, the creators are scumbags and there is nothing I would like more than for them to go away, but... They are notable.  553,000 GHits for "stormfront.org".  Wikipedia is not censored. - Richfife 05:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Article only an ad for a discussion board. Non encyclopedic. It can be listed on list of nazi sites, in articles about nazis, holocaust denial and so on. as it is now, it's just spam. Amoruso 05:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak keep The subject of the article is only mildy notable. It's been mentioned in a couple of CNN stories, but, it's right on the edge. I did to support having it around, but it's hard to see this article as being much more than a stub. We are having a hard time covering the subject neutrally, just because of a lack of secondary sources that talk about the subject. So, it's a toss up, but i tend to error on the side of not deleteing. --Alecmconroy 05:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment AFD is concerned with what an article could be more than what it is. I think the article should be semi-protected, at the very least, and then someone should write a completely dry, boring article covering just the facts and nothing else.  Nothing pisses off a neo-nazi more than people yawning - Richfife 05:31, 19 September 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.