Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormfront (website)

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 Cancelled. Not sure what's happening here and apparently a banned user is involved. I'm closing it. Start over if you'd like. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: Thanks to Stick to the Facts (talk • contribs) who pointed out that this discussion had never been closed in 2005. It's finally closed now and a 2nd discussion may be started. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront (website)

Note: Problem solved -- see below. Coll7 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In trying to make Stormfront a disambiguation page and move the current Stormfront to Stormfront (website) I screwed up and did the move by copying and pasting. After my error was explained, I have now placed a Request to Move the article, and have noted the request and the reasons why in the Talk:Stormfront page. I'm requesting deletion of the current Stormfront (website) so that the move can be made if the community supports it, since I had already gone through and fixed many of the links so that links to Stormfront would go to Stormfront (website). The move (which I'd be happy to do if approved) should be made immediately after the deletion so those links are not broken. Coll7 02:04, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

• Really I don't think you need to go through AfD to do that - it would be enough to get a consensus of editors participating on the article talk page; as for the delete and move process, just ask any admin to help. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:21, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hate to sound dumb, but I don't know how to hunt down an admin to make such a request. Thanks. Coll7 04:39, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Never mind -- made the new page Stormfront (online site), which solved everything. Fixing links now. Thanks for your help, and I withdraw the rfd. Coll7 01:18, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Don't know why there are two nominations.....but whateva I guess.UberCryxic 03:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stormfront (website)

massive vandalism through sock/meat puppets (evidence provided), doesn't satisfy 'notability', article is an advertisement, discussion and arguments below Stick to the Facts 02:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The Stormfront (website) wikipedia article has been embroiled in a massive edit war for several days. I uncovered evidence of sock puppetry/meat puppetry on a massive scale (see below). The editors continue to scrap other editors' contributions, including one with 11 cites that was claimed to be inappropriate due to "original research".

The article is, in my opinion, essentially being used as an extension of the Stormfront forums. There is only the weakest form of criticism permitted in the article. It has the look of a recruiting tool for the 'organization' including a link to a page where donations can be made.

The editors continue to reinsert a link to a donations page on the Stormfront website. There is no indication that Stormfront is a non-profit organization, a status that must be applied for and must meet rigorous requirements including rigid tax reporting requirements and fiscal spending constraints. At least, no one has alleged that it has such status and it is extremely doubtful that such an 'organization' would qualify.

The Stormfront forum also contains a post to recruit editors to 'keep an eye on' the Stormfront article dated September 14th: http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:seUEv9D__TQJ:www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php

Many new people began editing the Stormfront wiki article on sept 15th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stormfront_%28website%29&limit=250&action=history

User Brimba's user contributions page - began heavy editing of Stormfront article beginning Sept

15th http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Brimba

User Conserve's user contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited

Stormfront articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Conserve

User Magnetic's contributions page - account first used to edit on Sept 13th, has only edited Stormfront articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Magnetics

User ExplicitImplicity's contributions page, created account Sept 11th, first edit was stormfront article on Sept 13th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=ExplicitImplicity

User Alecmconroy's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=100&target=Alecmconroy

User UberCryxic's contributions page, began editing stormfront article heavily Sept. 16th: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=UberCryxic

Alecmconroy's talk page, showing solicitations from UberCryxic to assist in reverting pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alecmconroy&oldid=76349940

UberCryxic's talk page, showing messages from Alecmconroy discussing reversion strategy to avoid violating 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:UberCryxic&oldid=76147892 Stick to the Facts 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Again, although the user's allegations are patently ridiculous. The user was banned for violating 3RR on the article and erroneously accused well-meaning editors of vandalism. Alec and I actually came in as part of an RFC and fixed some parts that we thought violated Wikipedia's original research and NPOV policies. There was then a tug of war over what should stay and what should go. Thankfully this article is being considered for deletion now.UberCryxic 03:33, 19 September 2006 (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.