Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protest Warrior

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The result of the debate was Keep, as the nomination was withdrawn by BenBurch.--Chaser T 21:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protest_Warrior

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum pointing to this page, please note that this is not a vote. This is a discussion among Wikipedia editors and is aimed at reaching a consensus on whether the article is suitable for this encyclopedia. The outcome of AfD nominations are primarily determined by the quality of arguments for or against deletion; the process is immune to ballot-stuffing or sockpuppetry. You can participate in the discussion and post your opinions here, even if you are new. Deletion is based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, so please take a look at them if you have not already. For more information, see Wikipedia deletion policy. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Fails to meet WP:NOT BenBurch 23:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC) nomination withdrawn BenBurch 21:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MOVING COMMENTS TO TALK There are relevant comments that I am moving from this page to it's discussion page. I am attempting to be as neutral as possible as I do so. Please leave me a comment on my talk page if you think I unfairly moved something and I will be happy to review it.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I'm curious which requirement of WP:NOT you feel this organization fails to meet. The external links include articles about the group from MSNBC and the Washington Post, so they seem to be notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djrobgordon (talk • contribs)

Based on their Alexa ranking, around 164,000. BenBurch 00:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep pending elaboration on deletion rationale. Neutral Morgan Wick 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems notable to me with coverage in a number of different state and national newspapers. However, there needs to be more NPOV, both in the writing (there are only a few NPOV mentions) and in the references (I think only indymedia right now is a dissenting voice). Just FYI, I am opposed to the politics described in Protest Warrior but don't think that is any reason for me to vote to delete it (not that I'm implying that its nomination was motivated by political reasons). Interlingua ^talk 00:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, not a speedy keep candidate, although I question the motives of the nom on this one. Highly notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, while it may get some news mentions in current times, it is not notable enough for an encyclopedia that will hopefully be around for decades or centuries. A previous AfD nomination resulting in "keep" is one of the greatest obstacles to future deletion, so make sure that your nomination is accurate, thorough and persausive. -- Kjkolb 00:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same could be said for Ben Burch, his "society" and Democratic Underground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.76.15 (talk • contribs)
  • So because it reaches basic notability guidelines for a group here on Wikipedia, you don't think it belongs here in the future? --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this in reference to my comment? I don't think that they are notable enough for an article now, either. Perhaps the confusion is my saying "news mentions". I don't think that groups that get news mentions are necessarily notable enough for an article, now or in the future. News mentions are part of some guidelines (like WP:BIO), but the guidelines also say that there is disagreement about the guidelines themselves and that meeting one or more of the criteria does not necessarily mean that the article should be kept. A lot of things are temporarily famous but are quickly forgotten and have no significant impact on history. -- Kjkolb 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I forgot to answer the other comment. Yes, I would apply the same standards to other organizations, regardless of their politics. There's a lot of stuff from the right, left and center that should be deleted, in my opinion. -- Kjkolb 07:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, all of sites media mentions are from 2003, when this group was getting large pushes from mostly right wing commentators. There are hardly any recent media mentions, nor any citations of this organization in any sort of academic paper which shows this groups historical relevance as not lasting the test of time. This page seems to be created out of vanity by a users of this site's forum. --70.157.35.245 02:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP's sole contribution. It's worth noting, regardless, that there haven't been much in the way of worthwhile protests to be covered lately, either. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Nom. No recent media activity, terrible Alexa rankings for its web site, appears to be a group that has come and gone and nothing it did is worthy of more than a footnote in an encyclopedia. Weak Keep BenBurch 03:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So now media activity has to be recent to make it worthwhile? --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above Bwithh 02:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Article meets notability criteria. AfD likely to be ideologically motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.75.92 (talk • contribs)
  • First edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is more relevant than Democratic Underground. If they deserve an entry, PW deserves an entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.76.15 (talk • contribs)
  • Third edit. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. --James Bond 02:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above 69.149.102.130 03:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP's sole contribution.--James Bond 06:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable organization. Use of Alexa is misguided in this case. Protest Warrior has a web site but that doesn't mean it is a web site; WP:WEB doesn't apply here. Rather, the group is known for its organization of counterdemonstrations in real life, as discussed in the sources cited in the article. The group is still active and continues to be mentioned in news coverage of events where it engages in counterprotests [1]. --Metropolitan90 03:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons mentioned above. It is a global organization which receives moderate media attention and is active in many protests. Also, as a side note, Ben Burch seems to think that media attention is necessary for a Wikipedia organization article, although a Google News Search returns 1 result for "White Rose Society", and it has a page on Wikipedia, and also WhiteRoseSociety.org 's Alexa traffic report is hardly better than ProtestWarrior.com. Hypocrisy at its finest. Jdh 24 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk--Chaser T 04:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment (24.22.103.188 05:44, 15 June 2006) moved to talk--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is atleast as relevant as a certain democratic underground website. -- 05:58, 15 June 2006 64.219.31.247
• Delete Protest Warrior consists of very few people whatsoever. It claims to be global but offers no proof. Furthermore, it has videos on display with CLEARLY illustrate that it can mount counter-protests no larger than two dozen people. It is not global and it might have a few hundred people in it AT BEST. The forums are also incredibly small, with only a half dozen users on at any given time. It is NOT comparable to Free Republic or Democratic Underground forums. It's not worthy of anything, half the people ranting "keep" apparently are members and want attention. For God's sake, they managed to round up less than 30 people for a counter-protest at the Sept 24 March on Washington. How is it even an organization? My local PTA could put them to shame in comparable numbers. The attention mongers don't really deserve an article.--Grebrook 06:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lots of rhetorical fallacies, here.--James Bond 06:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grebrook obviously thinks the site is important as he trolled the forums a while back. Jdh 24 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • "Most users ever online was 324 on Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:44 pm" You were saying? Furthermore, Protest Warrior is an organization active outside the Internet, so WP:WEB's standards do not apply. Rogue 9 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep informative and interesting article. --Facto 06:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment (unsigned 72.68.177.238) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Facto abakharev 06:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

miscellaneous comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Irrelevant, no activity, no organization at all but internet forum only. The only ones that want to keep the article are Protestwarriors (also calling for vandalism): [2] --Tennik 09:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more than a few that said Keep on this page are not listed as Protest Warriors, so I don't know where you're coming from on that one, and the organization has gotten activity in the past year. Jdh 24 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm nota Protest Warrior, and I resent being rolled into the actions of an unfortunate few. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATTN

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A Descriptive Header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Please note this is not a forum for discussing the topic generally.--James Bond 07:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it has turned into a competition between a bunch of lame libertarian losers who want to establish PW as their stomping ground and therefore feel they are entitled to change the Wikipedia article as they please. It is not a debate forum, but a peice of information. This goes for all the communist, socialists, etc who are making it an agenda. C & D - Andishouldabeengone

comment (72.68.177.238 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep, mentioned in both MSNBC and The Washington Post, definitely notable. The extremely vague, tersely-worded nomination doesn't help either, and is probably the worst AfD nomination I've seen so far this year. Kimchi.sg 10:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets notability requirements per Kimchi.sg. Plus an organized right wing protest group is notable because of its rarity and the fact that it hasn't managed to achieve large scale support. It tells us a lot about the political culture in the USA at this time that there are "left wing" protest organization that can get hundreds of thousands of people onto the streets, but the "right wing" cannot. That alone makes this notable and encyclopedic, regardless of your political viewpoint. Gwernol 11:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that of course the left wing will have more protestors, it is not in power Jdh 24 13:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:WEB Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)No Vote not a WP:WEBsite, sorry. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a website, it's a grassroots organization. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep lots of media attention. WP:WEB is not relevant, as they're not primarily a web site. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. As for all these claims that recent media attention is required, 1.) such exists, as linked above, and 2.) do you now propose deleting, say, the article on the American Civil War? Last I checked, it hadn't gotten media coverage in over 140 years. :p Rogue 9 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough. Ted 15:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Protest Warrior is notable for actions and not the web site. PW shows the interesting phenomenon of counter protesting in the USA, France, Netherlands, and other countries.Jukin 16:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first two edits --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though I must strongly condemn the sockflood caused by a thread on their forums where they screech about Wikipedia being full of liberals and communists. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that tidbit of info is significant.... how? VoiceOfReason 16:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's useful to the closing admin. Newly registered users who contribute overwhelmingly to AFDs are often discounted as being possible sockpuppets or meatpuppets brought in by an off-site page. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Bad faith nomination. Group in question is certainly notable, more notable than the nominator, or his organization, who both have articles on Wiki. This is a big waste of time, thanks to BenBurch. Crockspot 16:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's ~10th edit. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

responsed moved to talk as "Extended argument about voters with few edits".--Chaser T 05:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Ideologically-motivated nomination; this article meets WP:NOT as well or better than many others. To all sides of the political debate, could you maybe keep your squabbles to your own forums and leave Wikipedia out of it? VoiceOfReason 16:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seconded. Strongly seconded. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. He has admitted as much on the forum Democratic Underground about his previous deletion crusade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.137.194 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 June 2006
  • In light of this comment and a little research into the backstory of the nominator, I am changing my vote to keep. Politically motivated action of this kind has no place in the encyclopedia, and is inherently divisive and inflammatory. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A sourced article with plenty of detail. -Robmods 16:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient external coverage to allow neutrality to be verified. Just zis Guy you know? 17:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Failure by nominator to sufficiently explain and justify nom. PW has ongoing activities (such as their continuous vigil outside Walter Reed) and news coverage. A short lull in news coverage does not warrant deletion. Jinxmchue 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per numerous press citations that would seem to establish a minimal level of notability for inclusion. Also, my condolences and pity upon the admin who had to cull through the meatpuppetfest this AfD has turned into... though dropping anything from an IP would be a good start...--Isotope23 20:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment (72.68.181.68 18:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)) moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Any article causeing this much debate has the notoriety and the substance to keep a place on this site. If it hadnt the effect it does, we wouldnt be haveing this convorsation. TunnelRat 21:35, 18 June 2006 (KW)
  • Actually User:195.229.13.114, and it's the anon's second edit, first in nearly 3 months. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a ridiculous politically motivated nomination. Neverborn 21:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE-- No recent PW activity of note. No counter protests to May 1 protests nor the last Anti War protests. "Chapters' such as the Los Angeles PW Chapter have more cancelled 'operations' than successful ones. There are college republican groups with members numbering in the thousands in L.A, and PW is shunned by them for their extremist Neonazi views and tactics. Counter protest activity in most chapters is dormant. Look at PW 'operations' http://forum.protestwarrior.com/viewforum.php?f=4 and other events where PW were no shows, like operation Defend the White House. PW is deader than Ronald Reagan. NBGPWS 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slanderous, offensive, and full of lies. Jdh 24 01:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's been shown that ProtestWarrior is a notable enough organization to be on Wikipedia.--Donbert 02:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've been following PW on the net for months. I admit it is a small group, but it is still pretty notable. V. Joe 02:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE! A PW even asked to have the entry deleted from Wiki in 'discussion' They know they're NOT WORTHY!'

On second thought they can stay if the name is changed to their REAL name, PRETEND WARRIOR! NBGPWS 02:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:VANITY, fails WP:WEB. Alexa rank has actually gone down lately; how is this possible with a link from Wikipedia? j/k. It just doesn't seem to meet any notability criteria. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can a senior editor please clean this page up? It's degraded into a troll/flame war. Jinxmchue 17:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing my best!--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete irrelevant, no activity, no organization at all but internet forum only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.136.151 (talk • contribs)

That baseless accusation has been refuted repeatedly.

We've already demonstrated their activity, in multiple cities, multiple countries, and multiple continents.

The Internet component of PW is subsidiary to the broader organization.

Please read through the entire discussion before making unsubstantiated allegations, otherwise I'll be forced to conclude that your motives for making that recommendation are not pure.

Not in good faith.

71.125.253.62 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Protest Warrior, like the Ku Klux Klan it shares many opinions with, needs to be on Wikipedia to warn people about its evil. 213.27.254.134 21:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More rhetorical fallacies & IP's sole contribution.--James Bond 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The person motioning for deletion has a personal vendetta against anything conservative. I find this to be a tasteless attempt at stalin like censorship. 24.166.11.4 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The only contributions the pro-censorship, leftbot jihadists have made to this discussion. The fact that this entry is even being considered for deletion speaks poorly to Wiki's quality control standards, IMHO. 71.125.247.127 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC) |}[reply]

Strong keep. --TJive 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The notability of the article's subject is sufficient in my opinion to warrant it's entry. --Wisden17 00:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, anyone who wanted to advance the argument that anon IP shouldn't be allowed to edit should take note of this AfD...--Isotope23 04:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. The article has been greatly vandalized by activists on both sides, but mostly by members of PW. One small, obscure activist group does not constitute "encyclopedic" material. 71.246.245.50 06:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to talk as "BenBurch and IP's argument about notability.--Chaser T 05:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

72.68.163.158's comments moved to talk.--Chaser T 05:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep The group seems to be just over the threshold for notability (because of the national media coverage). The article itself though is too partisan and contains too much irrevelent material, which needs to be reworked if it's going to be kept. Makgraf 06:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. What constitutes "vandalization?"

B. Do you have any substantive, confirmatory evidence that would suggest PWers are "vandalizing" this entry, or that they have created more mischief than those who are antagonistic towards PW?

72.68.163.158 06:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the assertion that this entry is biased in favor of Protest Warrior is demonstrably false, as anyone who gave even a cursory glance to the links section would realize.

There is the direct link to protestwarrior.com-as is customary with these entries-an article/interview from a mainstream cable news network, a balanced piece by a well-known, reputable conservative newspaper, followed by three extremely tendentious, critical opinion pieces, from various leftist sources.

72.68.163.158 06:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I looked up some records and not even a week ago BenBurch Nominated and deleted a wiki entry for a site called Conservative Underground. This is a another politically motivated nomination. And most of those saying delete are not citing wiki law but rather personal hatred for the group. 74.132.204.152 15:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an outright lie. BenBurch 23:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ben made the nomination for the first AfD and the community could not form a consensus. During the second AfD, in which Ben didn't participate, the community decided to delete. This AfD has gotten quite testy, so please get your facts straight if you're going to accuse people of things.--Chaser T 23:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Per above. 72.68.172.20 16:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete Legends in their own minds only, this group might rate a footnote in the entry on Fascism, but not its own article. 61.0.39.6 23:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another anonymous, uninformed-bereft of factual, empirical data-smear job from one of Ben Burch's online stormtroopers.

Unsupported, unsubstantiated calumnies.

That's the only thing that you losers-in real life as well as online-can contribute to this debate.

That's the best the DUmmies can offer.

72.68.187.150 01:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have not asked ANYBODY to come to this discussion, and I will thank you not to say so again. If somebody came here to leave an opinion, they more than likely found out about it on the PW message board or on CU where trolling WAS solicited. Did you think that only right-wingers read your sites? BenBurch 04:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't accused him of anything of which he is not guilty.

Are you denying that this-as well as the CU afd nomination-were motivated by base political animosities-and had no basis in fact?

He lied about a CU user creating his vanity White Rose advert.

He lied about LGF mentioning him and his website by name.

He lied about trolling for votes in leftist hives, e.g. DU.

Nothing he says or does has even a shred of credibility, IMHO.

72.68.187.150 01:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another outright lie. A CU member created the entry for Ben_Burch. That was Sammy the Squid Boy who did that. I never said that a CU user created the White Rose page, only that I never did. I never said that LGF mentioned my website by name. I said that LGF's page covered the same incident. I never trolled for votes on ether of these present issues, and the CU deletion that succeeded was not even a matter I was aware of. I see what you are doing here as defamatory under Wikipedia guidelines. BenBurch 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point well-taken.

I'll reserve this debate for "talk."

72.68.187.150 01:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• DELETE because of the childish meatpuppetry and vandalism. Sad. 213.59.99.178 02:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Might as well delete the entire Wikipedia site if that is the case for deletion Jdh 24 02:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious Keep: This nomination reeks of bad faith. The organization has had significant media coverage and there are enough reliable sources for an article. --Hetar 05:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Obvious biased attempt at tilting Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeedaGlock (talk • contribs) 05:58, 18 June 2006

• Weak keep The Protestwarrior website might be notable but nothing else. The article needs to be entirely rewritten and shortened in order to be kept.Protestwarrior is an internet forum but no organization, it's neither international nor an activist group. Delete Protest Warrior is calling for vandalism of the AFD page and the White Rose article, they have nominated the White Rose article for deletion in bad faith, they are asking others to remove the delete tag from the Protest Warrior article, risking the chance to get banned and they are using lots of sock puppets right here. Some of the Protest Warriors involved: James Bond, Wrathbone (IP 72.68.1xx.xxx) and Jdh_24, --Toicap 08:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll notice that I never called for anything. In fact, I told others to not vandalize Ben Burch's page. Oh, and who nominated the White Rose article for deletion? Oh, that's right, not a Protest Warrior. You'll also notice that there are not very many anonymous contributors to this page. Distort the facts elsewhere please. Jdh 24 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This AfD and the parallel AfD for White Rose Society eloquently make the case for revisiting WP:WEB and WP:NOT. I realize I'm a relative newcomer, but I'm no meatpuppet, and it seems to me that there should be a strong bias towards keep in any case. If an article with marginal notability remains in the encyclopedia, what is the harm? Surely the damage done by keeping an article that is arguably non-notable is much less than the damage done by deleting an article that is arguably notable. Setting a high bar for inclusion invites this sort of bad faith nomination, especially for articles on politically-charged topics. Keep this article, keep the article on the White Rose Society, keep the article on Ben Burch, and keep political debates where they belong... i.e. not here. VoiceOfReason 08:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Ignoring all the politics, they have gotten significant national coverage. The fact the haven't done much in the last year or so doesn't make them stop being notable. If this were a requirement, there wouldn't be any articles on dead people. Ace of Sevens 14:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Toicap, your assertions have already been amply refuted.

It is a worldwide organization, as has been proven-repeatedly-throughout this afd discussion.

Please read through the entire discussion-with accompanying links-before making baseless assertions.

72.68.187.222 15:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, let it be noted that Ben Burch has voted himself to "delete" on the WRS afd.

He has also said that he did not believe he deserved his own Wikipedia entry.

No one from Protest Warrior-except for NCB and Grebok, who are not actual PWers-has voted to delete this entry.

Plus, many who are not from PW-in fact, many who are very liberal-have voted to "keep" this article.

72.68.187.222 15:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to previous comment: The links can be found on the "discussion" page.

Why the links to those relevant documents were moved there is beyond me.

Please give a at least a cursory review to that page before making unfounded assertions.

72.68.187.222 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Minor musicians are kept, even if their notability wasn't very high and they have faded from the scene. So are their CD's. So are many other not-really-meaningful-today "things from the past," such as my boyhood favorite Hop Harrigan. Also, the length and intensity of this discussion presents some pretty strong evidence of notability. Lou Sander 19:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that a few politicly-motivated Individuals are trying to delete sites based on Leftist preference. So much for that Democratic Principle of "Free" speech, eh??

NOBODY hates the ideas of free speech and the free exchange of ideas more than a leftist, ESPECIALLY ben burch. Liberalism simply can no longer survive in the Arena of Free IDeas and Discussion, hence the Deletion of a political enemy

Toicap lies again.

James Bond has not been involved in any "vandalism," nor has he invoked any "sock puppets," however you choose to define that very subjective term.

He merely alerted CU and PW users-as is his right-to the bad faith afd nomination of perpetual partisan hit-man Ben Burch.

You have no evidence whatsoever to demonstrate that sock puppets-which you have yet to define-are being used to skew the results of this discussion, or that multiple Protest Warriors have "vandalized" this page, not that you have defined that term either.

71.125.240.18 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the person who nominated the WRS for afd was not a Protest Warrior.

Please retract that allegation, as it has already been disproved elsewhere.

71.125.240.18 19:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly fifty votes, as well as numerous comments that fill two entire pages.

Tell me again why Protest Warrior is not notable...?

71.125.240.18 19:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STRONGLY KEEP 20:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• COMMENT - Looks like you had it right, Toicap, somebody just vandalized the PW page and removed the header. Comment on the history; "18 June 2006 168.243.45.100 (Striking a blow for Freedom! Protest Warrior Forever!)" Having said that, I am changing my vote after some research. PW is marginally notable. Andf as somebody observed above, we need to keep track of these crypto-Klansmen somehow. BenBurch 20:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Is Ben Burch's "delete" going to be taken into consideration during final deliberations on this entry, considering the fact that this is his afd nomination?

I see that as a distinct conflict of interest.

71.125.240.18 20:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Crypto-Klansman."

Flagrantly false personal attack, which does not belong here.

I'm politely requesting that a Wiki editor with purview over this page either delete or move it.

71.125.240.18 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that this is the latest-but certainly not the first-personal, derogatory attack that Mr. Burch has initiated.

71.125.240.18 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you bother reading the vote I cast? I just changed it to weak keep. Next lie, please? BenBurch 20:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which I read after I had already posted my comment; edit conflict.

As prescient as I am I can't predict what someone else is going to say or write before the next minute elapses.

71.125.240.18 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could hardly be otherwise as you edit this entry about every three minutes. Usually with a personal attack about somebody. BenBurch 20:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who evinces so much concern for the Wiki process you don't seem to care much for adhering to its rules, do you?

71.125.240.18 21:02, 18 June 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.