Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website)

message: What is the policy on Semi-Protecting AfDs? Was this ever discussed during the development of SEMI? --LV (Dark Mark) 22:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The vandal IPs need blocking, not the AFD page. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SP? 

message: So, I'm going to attempt to restart the discussion. The problem I see is that this article is a battle in a larger war, where two political Internet factions are spilling over into Wikipedia. The article in question was nothing more a link to an external site with no substance, and to me it smacked of advertisement since there was no real useful information provided. My dispute was merely that it served no purpose as it was written other than to advertise for one side, given it had no relevant cultural, political, or historical merit. I personally do not appreciate Wikipedia being used as an apparatus for two political camps to duke it out through editing and vandalism. That this occurs is evident in this very AFD. I enjoy using Wikipedia and wish to keep it that way. If anyone really wants this specific article to be kept, perhaps they should add content that lends it merit.
Ultimately, I think every article dealing with Internet politics and the involved personas should be merged into a single article with subarticles so the defacement is at least kept in one place. M00
Perhaps what is needed is a very different basic ruleset?  A Wikipedia that cannot talk about anything that happened in the preceeding five years, for example.  Yes people fight over cold political topics, but not to the extent that they fight over current events. BenBurch 05:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Broader Problem

message: I was in the process of writing a piece about how there is no automatic right to publish on Wikipedia, but the content I was referring to got purged. Anyway:
Most of the above (now deleted) isn't even relevant. This is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia has policies regarding the notability of the subjects of an article plus a no advertising policy. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the only wiki on the world wide web. The site in question can be adequately written up for the sake of 'history' somewhere else. (Yellowwikis, one of the IT wikis, Wikicities, my own forthcoming Wikiplanets). --kingboyk 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And I hardly need any advertising...  The point here is that this deletion is not about the merits of either my page (also up for deletion) or the White Rose page, but about a political battle.  If five million hours of audio served isn't notable enough for Wiki, fine, but under that sort of interpretation, sites like Conservative Underground don't deserve their pages, either...  I could make quite an asshole of myself finding web page entries on wikipedia and citing them for deletion because I disagree with their politics, were I so inclined... BenBurch 02:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to add that the user who initiated this delete request has not exactly distinguished himself or herself before or during this sequence by his or her actions. I did see this issue mentioned on Democratic Underground, and as a Wikicitizen I'm glad my attention was called to this matter by whatever board I visit. I don't actually give a hoot about the political views of users here, I'm more concerned about any attempt by any user to censor any article on the basis of disagreement with POV. I don't approve of animal mistreatment (some clearly don't share my POV), but I think it important that Wikipedia have at least a redirect to an appropriate article on that subject. BusterD 04:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment About Wikis