Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill White (neo-Nazi)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 18:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bill White (neo-Nazi)

Bill White (neo-Nazi) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Biography of non-notable racist. Although the article does have a few references (including one from the SLPC) they all seem to assert notability of his website Overthrow.com. I suggest deleting this article and making another article to cover his website. RucasHost 07:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. The article has 15 inline citations, another 15 end references, and 9 external links. When the subject was involved there were well over a hundred sources listed.[1] (He's an avid self-promoter). It took work to get the list pared down. Overthrow.com is just one of his many notable and non-notable endeavors, including founding at least two political parties and trying, with some success, to start several riots. I'm afraid to say that this is a notable racist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment The fact that he's an avid self-promoter seems to be argument for deletion. It's almost certain he's editting his article a lot (in violation of Wikipedia policy) to generate publicity. Many of the citations are junk (references to racist essays written by him and his friends) and those which are good have more to do with his website than him. --RucasHost 08:04, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as long as it is written in a neutral point of view, the subject is notable, and verifiable then it get an article. The original author is irrelevant - as long as it is now neutral. Wikipedia is not censored. I personally don't like the subject at hand, but thats my personal opinion, and is not a valid reason for deletion. Fosnez 08:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Like I have said many times, the subject isn't really notable. His website is notable, he is just the man behind the website. --RucasHost 08:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain Weak keep per footnotes sources, he is notable. [2] [3] With WP:AUTOBIO alone we cannot delete. Carlosguitar 08:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm torn on this: I checked several sources and the most he gets is a passing mention, either as spokesman/commander of "American National Socialist Worker Party", involved in several incidents, or as the author of the website. Only the local Roanoke newspaper article ([4]) is about him, sort of, as well as SPLC Intelligence report (but then, they cover just about every racist group in the US). Apart from this, the article suffers from a lots of quote mining. Weak delete, I think, and I might change my mind if anyone finds more substantial coverage. Duja► 08:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, I think that Will Beback below made it. Keep. Duja► 09:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and unsubstantial coverage (is only mentioned in passing as Duja pointed out) by any independant sources.--LAZY 1L 10:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete- not only is he self-editing/promoting, but he is doing it to promote his cause. Strong delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The subject hasn't edited the artilce in a long time, and it has been heavily edited by other editors since then. This article has been stable for over a year. I've done a search of a newspaper archive and have found several articles that are mostly about the subject:.
    • "NEO-NAZIS VOW TO RETURN TO OHIO TO STAGE RALLY" The Associated Press. Richmond Times - Dispatch. Richmond, Va.: Nov 10, 2005. pg. B.4
    • "Landlord is victor after long battle" Carol Hazard. Knight Ridder Tribune Business News. Washington: Nov 3, 2005. pg 1
    • "Anarchist Web site salutes 2 killers" Robert Stacy McCain. Washington Times. Washington, D.C.: Apr 30, 1999. pg. A.10
    • "FBI PROBES DEATH THREATS AGAINST MIAMI COLUMNIST" Greg Gordon McClatchy Newspapers. Daily Press. Newport News, Va.: Jun 21, 2007. pg. A.2
    • "NEO-NAZI SITE POSTS ADDRESSES OF TRUTH PANELISTS ; ALTHOUGH SOME SEE A THREAT TO THE RECONCILIATION BOARD, POLICE CHOOSE NOT TO CONTACT THE MAN WHO HOSTS THE PAGE" Lorraine Ahearn Staff Writer. Greensboro News Record. Greensboro, N.C.: Jul 3, 2005. p. B.1
  • There's even a profile of his former girlfriend:
    • "Female neo-Nazi seemed carefree at arraignment", PETER GELZINIS. Boston Herald. Boston, Mass.: Jun 26, 2001. p. 008
  • I also should mention again the long list of media mentions that was once in the article: [5] So to the extent that notability is established by substantial coverage in mainstream press, this subject easily qualifies. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
comment - What does JJJ999s talk page have to do with Bill White? I don't see anything there at all Kuronue |

Talk 04:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep - there are apparently at least a dozen reliable sources for the article, so I don't see what the problem is. If you want to stop a single user from editing a page about himself, there're other ways to do it besides deleting the entire article. Kuronue | Talk 04:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep From what has been said during this discussion , there re clearly enough sources for notability for him & his website, and the article is probably better here. We won't really need two. COI is not a reason for deletion, just for neutral editing. DGG (talk) 08:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Truest blue 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC) sockpuppet GRBerry 03:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep He's certainly notable; this article lists several references to the fact. As for the question of whether or not he's more notable than his website, I really don't understand the arguement. His website is just a collection of his nonsensical ravings; this page covers basically the same subject matter a page on his website would. Revolutionaryluddite 04:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete He's no notable enough to deserve an article here. --Tesla55 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Freedom of Speech FTW —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.60.79 (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The Associated Press has an article about the subject today: "FBI Reviewing Anti-Jena 6 Web Page". Also covered in the local media: "Roanoke neo-Nazi condemns Jena Six" (Roanoke Times), "FBI Investigates Local White Supremacist's Website" WSLS NewsChannel 10. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep With the whole Jena 6 thing; he's now a notable wart on society. Regretably Keep. Cowicide 06:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, depressingly enough. Yes, he has edited his own page (and other pages on Wikipedia) in an attempt to raise his own profile; but it appears he's received enough coverage in mainstream sources to become notable by now anyway. How I wish it were otherwise. Terraxos 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Odious though this person may be, he is adequately notable per WP:BIO. A1octopus 16:36, 25 September 2007 (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.