There is no reason to treat AFF and SF the same. The neutrality policy, which explicitly states that it is not to be confused with “all views deserve equal time no matter how many or how few people hold them”, certainly requires nothing of the sort – look it up yourself, I won’t do your homework for you.

 Moreover, the merits of AFF and the merits of SF are two entirely separate and independent things. No amount of slamming AFF – even if your charges are accurate, which I doubt as your behaviour here strongly suggests your perceptions on such things cannot be trusted – can ever, by itself, make SF worth including. SF must stand or fall on its own merits.

There are many serious strikes against including SF, none of which you have even tried to address. First of all it borders on being a blog, which is already an almost-decisive point against it (there was talk of banning links to blogs entirely at one point though it isn’t actually policy to do so as far as I know – certainly “it’s a blog” has stood uncontested as sufficient reason for deleting links on many pages, including the same one we’re fighting over). Equally importantly, having read parts of SF... though I do not myself agree with the characterization, I can see why others have gone so far as to call it a hate site. To be blunt, it's largely the chronicle of one person's persecution complex. As I said elsewhere, it verges on conspiracy theory in the kookiest sense. And then there is the painfully bad prose and screechy hysterical tone most of it is written in – it is simply not in any way a quality site and would not be even if I could credit the actual content. These three points – heck, any two of them – are sufficient reason leave the link off Wikipedia.

And I haven’t even mentioned the most important reason yet. Your site simply is not notable. As far as I can honestly tell, you are the only person on Earth who considers it an important site. If it was worth linking to, someone other than the site's owner would have done so by now, or at least spoken up in favour of such. That last part, at least, is well-documented Wikipedia policy; look it up yourself as I once again refuse to do your homework for you. 

I am sorry – sort of – if some of this comes across as harsh. Though you will no doubt characterize this note as a personal attack, it is not intended as such (and compared to some of the things you’ve posted about others, including me, it’s not even close to qualifying as one). I wish only to lay out as clearly as possible why there is little hope of SF being linked from that or any other Wikipedia page.