Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gatekeeper (politics)
Do you mean you or those sites will attack WP as a gatekeeper, or me?  I hope that isn't what that means (WP has plenty of scandalous stuff about Bush, anyway).  The Gatekeepers article is simply not neutral from the first part of the first sentence: "In political parlance, a gatekeeper or left gatekeeper" - right there: "political parlance"?  Broad use by politicians or political scientists?  'Fraid not. One of the other problems I failed to mention was the lengthy list of alleged gatekeepers. I don't know if there's a specific policy on allegations on WP (there's no lists of alleged homosexuals or people alleged by David Icke to be reptilian humanoids for example, though some pages do mention allegations), but List of people described as neoconservatives got Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_people_described_as_neoconservatives|deleted (see AfD) for similar reasons.  The Gatekeepers article simply uncritically reproduces a list of allegations from a nn site #Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links.2C images.2C or media files|WP is not a mirror (in its original conception it collated allegations from several nn sites).  The article's primary author () invited criticism to be added, but this theory seems to be so nn that apparently none of the major right, center, or left media has commented on it in the US or abroad
— User:Schizombie, 19:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NOT||WP:OWN (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)