Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website) 2nd nomination

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BenBurch (talk | contribs) at 19:27, 18 June 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The White Rose Society (website)

Does not meet WP:WEB, not notable, low Alexa ranking, no recent news, doesn't even get pushes from left-wing commentators, and the site owner himself, Ben Burch, has indicated that he would like the page deleted (though he claims to be neutral about it) Jinxmchue 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment My nomination aside, I really don't think this page should be deleted. My only goal here is consistency on Wiki. Every reason given for the deletion of the Protest Warrior page is just as applicable to the White Rose page. If PW stays, WR should stay. If PW is deleted, WR should be deleted. (And vice versa on both of those, too.) That's it. Jinxmchue 02:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral Weak delete Stevie convinced me. I'll vote even though I am connected with the page. - Would be inappropriate for me to make any vote, though I will say that this site is mentioned on radio shows about 9 times a day, and sends out 6000 GiB of audio data every month. Also, I never said that I wanted this page deleted, that was said about the page about me personally. But I'll happily accept the judgement of others on this. BenBurch 04:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just make sure you troll for votes over on DU like you did the last time, Ben. Yeah. Real "neutral." Jinxmchue 04:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you'd never troll over on any of your boards, right? BenBurch 04:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you two want to have a personal argument, do it on your talk pages, not here. Every petty comment makes this nom look more and more like it was made in bad faith. This nom might have been done just to make a point, if comments in the AfD for Protest Warrior are any indication. --djrobgordon 04:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain it *was* done to make a point, but I'm happy to let other Wiki editors pass judgement on the worth of this entry on its merits. BenBurch 04:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "faith" of my nom is no different than the "faith" of Ben's noms. Make of that (and Ben) what you will. Jinxmchue 05:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jinxmchue, read WP:CIVIL and at least try to follow it.--Isotope23 17:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. And I will politely ask Ben to do the same. Jinxmchue 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here after reading the attack piece on Conservative Underground. This is some sort of demented revenge here, not any sort of attempt to improve Wiki. Sad. This is why this resource has such a low reputation. I use it, but I cannot trust it. 194.210.99.192 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are no claims on notability in the article and no reliable sources that can be verified. If notability can be provided (e.g. a link to independent coverage in a notable newspaper or similar) then I'll change to Keep. Gwernol 16:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As the nominator pointed out, the reasons for deleting this article are the same as deleting Protest Warrior. Neither deserves deletion. I remain flabbergasted that Conservative Underground was deleted. VoiceOfReason 16:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither this article nor Protest Warrior should be deleted in the name of some political wrangling that has somehow made its way onto Wikipedia. --Kuzaar-T-C- 17:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sir, your fairmindedness is a credit to Wikipedia. If you have the sway, you may want to look into the deletion of Conservative Underground, under identical circumstances. Crockspot 17:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • . On further review as prompted by the user Crockspot, I investigated this site a bit and noted that its Alexa rating is a mere 166,000. In comparison to the Conservative Underground AFD (a site which incidentally has a ranking of 44,000), I think that it's a poor sign that that result came up delete while this previously came up keep. I have changed my vote to delete. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB. As stated by Gwernol, I will be totally willing to reconsider if someone can advance verifiable, reliable sources that this meets WP:WEB. Right now I just see a lot of indictment of the motives behind the AfD with no attempt to prove this meets or exceeds the criteria for inclusion laid out at WP:WEB. Incidentally, this is the same thing that happened with the Conservative Underground AfD. Not once did anyone opining retention of that article make an attempt to assert how CU met WP:WEB.--Isotope23 17:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Ben, as I'm sure you're aware the AfD process is not a vote but a discussion, and if you continually interject to provide facts helpful to a single side of the debate, you're a de facto partisan, no matter how piously you proclaim your neutrality. I reiterate my Keep recommendation. This article is little more than an advertisement for a not-very-popular website, but what of it? Once political partisans begin engineering AfDs for articles they find objectionable, it will never end. It has in fact already begun with the Burch-orchestrated removal of Conservative Underground; let's bring it to a swift and speedy end. Ben, I find your crusade against Wikipedia articles referencing politics you do not share to be in stark conflict with the liberal ideals you purport to espouse, but in compliance with WP:CIVIL I will refrain from accusing you of baldfaced hypocrisy. VoiceOfReason 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not even vote in the removal of CU. Go check the process. BenBurch 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do apologize. I said "I'm sure you're aware" that the AfD process was a discussion and not a vote, but apparently my assumption was hasty and you weren't in fact aware of this. I have done as you suggested and checked the process for the deletion of Conservative Underground, which was initiated by you on January 11... for reasons, I might add, of a "low Alexa page rank", which happened to be three times higher than the rank of the page which is the subject of the article currently under consideration for deletion. Somehow, Your Neutralness has failed to point this out in your comments on this page, but I'm certain it was just an oversight. Again I find myself struggling to conform to WP:CIVIL, which is difficult when confronted with what to all appearances is stark hypocrisy and attempted censorship, and I offer my apologies to any Wikipedians offended by any portions of this comment which cross the line. As any of the pointed questions I'd like to ask you would certainly run far afoul of civility requirements, you are invited to contact me via either my talk page or Neutral Underground to explain how you reconcile your actions with your principles. VoiceOfReason 21:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reading comprehension problems? That AfD failed! The one that DID succeed was one I was totally unaware of. And yes, it is a vote even if the vote isn't counted as such. BenBurch 21:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not that it is in any way relevant to this discussion, but I initiated the AfD of Conservative Underground that resulted in it's deletion and for the record, I am not a member of any political groups, forums, or parties. I nominated it because there is no evidence it meets the WP:WEB criteria for inclusion. Bottom line, if it meets the guidelines it stays... otherwise it goes.--Isotope23 02:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close. Becoming war of personal attacks. - Kookykman|(t)e 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expect?

You have a febrile, partisan attack dog, i.e. Burcher, who doesn't even make a pretense of intellectual honesty.

72.68.190.24 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Ben Burch brought this on himself for alleging that media attention and Alexa traffic reports were needed for a encylopedic article. His pure hypocrisy is the main reason why this article is being subjected to deletion. I can tell that he is trying to act like the 'nice guy' or 'neutral' on this article. Also, I think that it was he that started the deletion process for the CU article, unless I am mistaken, and his website has a dismal traffic report compared to CU. I think that this article could be deleted based on WP:Web. Jdh 24 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burch is an habitual liar.

Exhibit A:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=208875&action=viewTopic&commentID=7355303&topicPage=

Exhibit B:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=197875&action=viewTopic&commentID=6893043&topicPage=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.190.24 (talk • contribs)

In light of "Exhibit B", I now change my vote to Delete. Jdh 24 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the freak who's obsessed with S&M and furries.

That comment would be more fairly directed at The Fister, IMHO.

In all seriousness, why haven't there been any consequences for Burch's malicious behavior?

I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.

72.82.111.224 23:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow me to buck Ben's expectations and vote Keep. I don't agree with him on a lot of things, and probably don't with about 3/4 of the material on his site, but that's irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. I contend that WP:WEB is also a poorly conceived policy, as Alexa rankings, especially on sites that attract tech-savvy (and thus non-Internet Explorer using) users, are inaccurately low since Alexa cannot count hits that come from browsers immune to it's spyware. Rogue 9 01:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, thank you. Honestly, I am not sure the White Rose entry meets WP:WEB or WP:NOT, but you are right about Alexa. Here are the statistics for my root server (it has a 10 Mbps line, there are four other servers with 100Mbps lines not included in this, but this hosts all of the actual html) White Rose Root Server Stats BenBurch 05:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's all irrelevent, Ben. One does not gauge notability by the size of one's, um, "equipment." The "mine's bigger than yours" bit won't help you. And it's odd that you've suddenly decided to change your mind about Alexa when it's your site that's on the line. That says a lot about your motivations. Jinxmchue 15:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course the amount of equipment is irrelevant! I am just clarifying. Alexa does a good job of sites like PW or CU because the users are more likely to install their spyware. When comparing two sites which are similar in their user base, like FR and CU or PW, Alexa is a fiar basis for comparison. WRS's user base, for example, has more Mac users and more Linux users than FR does. I know this as I have posted images to busy threads on FR and watched the logs to see what fetched them. But in any case, go look at the log files and you will observe that 17,000 unique users per week use White Rose. Why don't you ask your people how many use CU in the same interval? And of course none of this makes WRS or CU notable at all. I think neither are notable. Like LU isn't notable, and PW isn't notable and NU isn't notable and DW isn't notable. I would move to delete entries on any of those. And that is why I have not opposed the removal of WRS. BenBurch 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, Alexa rankings are not part of the WP:WEB criteria, just an additional checkpoint that some people use to quantify the vague notion of notability.--Isotope23 12:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and there's too many personal attacks. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, bickering between pro/anti-advocates aside... the site has an Alexa rank of 177,000 and no reliable sources for information. There does not appear to be anything notable about it that would justify its inclusion here. - Motor (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Isotope23. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Motor.--Auger Martel 17:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caught in multiple lies.

Burch is a habitual prevaricator and a blatant hypocrite.

Bottom of the barrel Alexa ranking-using Burch's own hypocritical standards, not mine-no noteworthy mentions of his site outside of the DU hive-and perhaps AAR/leftbot talk show hosts that are consistently rated at the bottom in most objective Arbitron measurements-and an unwillingness to broach anything but the most anemic argument in its defense.

This is an open and shut case for deletion, IMHO.

71.125.253.62 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable site. Examining the statistics posted above is convincing.
  • Strong Keep Notable site, especially among American expats. And this does seem to be a revenge nomination from a person who has some personal vendetta against Mr. Burch. 82.245.188.240 17:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already stated, my purpose is to keep both Wiki and people like Ben consistent. The reasons given for the deletion of the Wiki pages for CU (which worked) and WP (which is still being considered) can be equally applied to WRS. Jinxmchue 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pull the other one. You are transparent 82.245.188.240 11:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, it is you, Mr. Anonymous-Sock-Puppet-with-no-contributions-to-Wiki-other-than-this-discussion, who is transparent. My nomination may have been initiated by Ben's nomination of PW, but my motivation is and always will be consistancy. Either show me how the reasons people are giving for deleting PW's page can't be equally applied to WRS's page or... well, I agreed to stick to WP:CIVIL, so I won't finish that.

Motivated by the fact that this site is not notable in any way, even among hard core leftists, most of whom are unaware of it.

It gets less traffic-in aggregate, and by a large margin-than the sites that Burch has nominated-out of spite-for deletion.

71.125.253.62 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that it is a vendetta? And I don't think you KNOW any hardcore leftists! 82.245.188.240 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.

Yes, you hardly ever run into the type in this city.

Please, don't pontificate on things you know nothing about.

This is not a vendetta.

It was simply done in order to illustrate the fact that Burch, despite the misleading name of his unpopular website, is every bit the goose-stepping, book-burning Nazi.

He poses as an advocate of free speech, and yet attempts to crush any point of view that is contrary to his, which is probably why he fits in so well at the DU hive.

71.125.253.62 19:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note to anons, this isn't a message board. If you are not going to render an opinion, support said opinion, or give evidence how this site meets WP:WEB, take your discussion elsewhere.--Isotope23 20:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion.

Statistics from Alexa supporting that decision:

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352 (29,015)

Speed: Average (60% of sites are faster), Avg Load Time: 2.1 Seconds (what's this?)

Other sites that link to this site: 148

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/main?q=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F&url=www.whiterosesociety.org%2F

Also, pledge drives that last in excess of half a year, an indication that even its most vociferous supporters do not see a compelling need for its presence on the Internet.

71.125.253.62 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • So is 71.125.253.62 one user posting multiple times here, or a proxy being used by multiple people? In any case, my funding drives have never taken more than about 60 days, so tell some more lies while you are at it? Current drive begun 11 days ago with a $10,000 goal stands at $1830.00 right now, and that does not count the monthly regular donors, streaming fees for private streaming services I sell, or the subscriptions to Thom Hartmann's subscription service, which I get a percentage of. And again, I am not arguing that any of this means that the White Rose entry on Wikipedia ought to be kept or deleted, but I won't tolerate your lies. BenBurch 20:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Up to $1,887.35 now... BenBurch 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I think White Rose is significant because it is an historical archive. There are full-length audio files documenting American political discourse from the left over the last five years in great detail, with some files going back into 2000. I am using it now in my doctoral dissertation on opposition politics in the USA. Assuming this site persists, it is worthy of an encyclopedia entry for just that reason; To guide researchers such as myself to this resource. And if you can judge such a political web site based on the amount of absolute hatred it creates in its opponents, it is not only significant, but actually successful. Just my $0.02 US. 213.27.254.134 21:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yeah, Ben, its SO INAPPROPRIATE for CU'ers to spread the word about an unnecessary and politically motivated deletion attempt, yet its cool for DU'ers to find a poll on a local newspaper site about Bush and you can send DU over in droves to "DU the poll". Once again, leftist hypocrasy (sp?) at its finest.

Again, with the unsubstantiated, libelous accusations.

So typical of you.

If you want to prove that I am multiple people, then I suggest you do so, Burch.

Either that, or retract your pathetic allegation now.

71.125.247.127 23:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations? I asked a question about an anonymous dumbfuck who was spamming this discussion... If you don't want to have people doubt if you are one person or many, create a user name like a real human being rather than being an anonymous coward. BenBurch 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone is the coward it's you, you corpulent, obsessive freak of nature.

Running to your leftbot hives, stirring up your fellow leftist imbeciles to gin up fake votes against websites that dwarf the traffic-and media recognition-of you and your pathetic site.

I'm not justifying myself to a goose-stepping, dissembling, transparently hypocritical asshole like you.

Sorry Fister, I'm simply not giving you the satisfaction.

BTW, how is that PW purge going?

Heh, heh.

71.125.247.127 23:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, does "dumbfuck" fall under the rubric of "personal attacks?"

I'm curious, will Burch receive the same warnings that I have received, or is a double standard in effect?

Liberal nutbars can slime and slander whoever they feel like, but conservatives can't reply in kind...?

71.125.247.127 00:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Examining the site statistics provided above I see that this site serves almost twenty thousand unique IPs every week. And I can only assume that most of those are repeats given the nature of an archive site. This makes it notable. 82.142.150.82 00:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the description of the website, verbatim:

Mmp3 audio archive of talk shows criticizing George W. Bush.

There are hundreds-if not thousands-of websites that host either audio files, or video files, or columns criticizing President Bush. I don't think anyone can seriously assert that Wikipedia should maintain entries on each and every website that has content that criticizes President Bush.

The only noteworthy talk show host listed on the main page of his site is Randi Rhodes, who is heard on a scant 33 terrestrial radio stations, and, according to a 2005 Talkers magazine survey, was not even listed among the top 25 syndicated talk show hosts in the country.

71.125.253.61 01:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral although I would like to vote. Weak delete I don't care about all the AfD wranglings--irrelevant to me. Also, I don't care about arguments for delete (as this is a clear case of potential acceptability if it's actually notable). What I want to know is: What makes this website notable in an encyclopedic sense? By the way, I don't care about Google or Alexa results--I've long since disregarded that data for consideration of notability. I want to see a list of serious points that suggest notability. One point that has been brought up is that the site is mentioned on-air multiple times a day--if that is a matter of independent mentions that aren't contractual in nature, I will consider that. I want to be fair here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 02:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, No contracts involved. I archive shows by permission, and the show hosts mention the archives because they want to. Some do it every show every day. Others, such as Randi Rhodes do it so infrequently that I get emails from my fans telling me that she did it. But I am still myself unsure of the encyclopedic notability of this page. White Rose I have no doubt is notable; I have 15,000 hours of Liberal/Progressive talk radio archived on the site, going back to 2001 for some of the shows, and serve around 17,000 unique people weekly. If I didn't think it was notable and important I wouldn't be doing it. But I am not at all sure if an encyclopedia needs to take note of it. It's not Planck's Constant. It's not Charles Darwin. And you don't have to say that you are going to be fair about this. That is a given BenBurch 02:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "notability" obviously must subtract how we feel about our own work--it deals solely with how the "world" or the community that surrounds the entity thinks about and treats said entity. Crooks and Liars has been around since 2004, it archives audio/video of interest to the left, and it's notable because in the left-wing blogosphere, one trips over all the references to it. However, I don't notice this same kind of tripping over WRS mentions. I think that necessarily, for a website to have notability, it must be deemed important by its most natural constituency, and for WRS, that is the same (or very similar) constituency as that for Crooks and Liars. Also, just because an entity acts as a great voluminous resource doesn't automatically make it notable--notability is whether a lot of people, especially influential (well, notable) people commonly refer to this resource as some kind of "must-see". I guess I'm just going to have to see more evidence of notability... like mentions in mainstream sources--I read above that Randi Rhodes has mentioned it sometimes... if something like this is documented (as in transcript documentation) as a regular occurrence from Rhodes or other notable personalities, I would be inclined to vote at least "weak keep". Links to several transcripts like this would do the trick for me. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as there are not textual transcripts prepared for any of these shows, that is a tough call. Listen to the last ten minutes of Mike Malloy's show, or Bob Kincaid's show and you'll hear me and the site mentioned by name. Unlike Crooks & Liars, I don't archive "events". They have clips of exceptional things that happen in the video realm. I have a daily archive of nine different shows, also archives of several weekly shows, and never take anything offline. Want to hear what Randi Rhodes said the day that Bush landed on the carrier? It's there. And people do refer to the site when they need to refer to a particular show in their blogging. Drudge mentioned me once over a skit that Randi Rhodes' people played that seemed to imply somebody shooting the President, and I had about 38,000 visits that one day! Here is an lgf mention of the same event; [1] But honestly I am not going to defend White Rose's page here because I don't really know why White Rose, or DU, or FR, or CU, or PW belong in an encyclopedia. They are all already in google and yahoo and dogpile... Isn't that enough? BenBurch 03:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Last ten minutes" sounds like an advertisement, Ben. I see no mention of you in the Drudge text quoted on LGF (and that page is conveniently gone from Drudge, so no way to verify if LGF quoted the whole thing, but Charles does quote things entirely). And it's obvious you ARE defending White Rose's entry, Ben. Why else would you be posting all this information? It makes no sense to waste all this time and energy for something you don't even think should be on Wiki. Jinxmchue 16:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here is the clip in question from the most recent Malloy show. As you will hear, it is *credits* not an advert. Malloy Show closing credits 6-16-2006
Alright, I found the Drudge archive of the "mention." It amounts to nothing more than a direct link to the audio file. Absolutely no specific mention of WRS or Ben.[2]
It says "A Randi Rhodes Fan site is offering an mp3 clip of the broadcast." with the link to the site. That is a mention. BenBurch 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LGF, i.e. Charles Johson, mentions the event-and the Randi Rhodes Show-he does not mention you or your website.

Although I didn't scroll through the entire thread, so it's quite possible that a random poster might have mentioned you or your show, but I highly doubt it.

72.68.163.158 03:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... Check reply #149 where the site is mentioned and the fact that Drudge linked to it.... BenBurch 04:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should be obvious, but Wikipedia is a encyclopedia/reference while those other things are web search engines. Not everything that is notable has a great presence in search engine results. Also, it might be helpful to think in these terms: Would talking about WRS be suitable for a history book with regards to left-wing broadcasts? Does WRS have a significant degree of indispensability to left-wing broadcasting? At any rate, I am not asking for a argumentative defense... just some links to resources. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 03:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, honestly, I don't want to be in the position of defending this entry. Go look at the server stats linked above if you want some idea of how important it is to the people who use it. 17000 unique users in the average week, and that does not include streaming users or users of our usenet postings of every show we archive, or people who go directly to the mp3 directories and skip the html pages. Is it indispensable? Many think so, but I have no particular desire to document that, though I am happy to answer your earnest inquiries as best I can. The best indication of that is that people donate money to me for what they can download from me for free, This is the third fundraiser I've run at the $10,000 level since last September, and we succeeded with the first two, and are well on the way to succeeding with this one. But, honestly, I don't care if White Rose has a Wikipedia entry or not. My log files show me about 200 hits from that page, most of them during this AfD and the last one. Ppeople don't come to White Rose though looking for White Rose! They come to it by looking for Randi Rhodes or Mike Malloy, or Thom Hartmann. This entry is likely an appropriate jumping off point for the links on their individual Wiki pages, sort of a disabigualtion, but one that could easily be dispensed by having a direct link in all of those individual places. BenBurch 04:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, fer crying out loud! None of this is relevent, Ben. It has no bearing whatsoever on notability, which is not measured by web hits, fundraisers and downloads. There are literally thousands of pages which should have Wiki entries by those standards, but they don't because they are not notable. Also, I've noticed you have added links to WRS on the Wiki pages for Jay Marvin [3], Randi Rhodes[4] and Mike Malloy[5] within the last 24 hours. And the links are to your front page, not their individual archives on WRS. Trying to drum up some notability, are we? Jinxmchue 15:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not commenting on what specifically was added to the subject article, but it is all right to update an article while being considered for Afd, except of course to remove the Afd tag. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood what I was looking at re: updates. But what Ben Burch did with external links is perfectly fine. His site is notable enough for an external link in said articles, as his site naturally extends knowledge about those subjects. Perfectly legit. But for this article, there is a different standard... see my changed vote above. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me, Steve. Changed my vote too. BenBurch 19:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those would be nice.


72.68.163.158 03:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this determination should be based upon this website's notability within the far-left Web community.

Even using that criterion it fails miserably.

Compare the amount of sites that link to the WRS-a little over a hundred-to the number that link to more popular leftist, vehemently anti-Bush websites, e.g. Bartcop, which has over 800 sites that link to it, or Common Dreams, which has over eight thousand sites that link to it.

72.68.163.158 04:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal, and in a tailspin.

By Burch's own parochial standards it does not meet even de minimus qualifications for a Wikipedia entry.

72.68.163.158 06:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do believe we understand your position. No need to keep restating it over and over and over again. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 14:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply trying to elicit a credible response from Burch.

He still hasn't justified the inclusion of his extremely obscure organization in Wikipedia on any grounds, other than self-interest.

It is an advertisement, and per Wikipedia guidelines, should be deleted.

72.68.172.20 16:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you say may or may not be true. But it is not Ben Burch's job to defend the subject of a Wikipedia article that he happens to run. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please humor us and learn how to format your comments, Wikipedia-style. It will lend gravitas to your position. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a Wikipedia regular.

Hence, any formatting irregularities.

Although, I don't see how my lack of familiarity with afd discussions-or even Wikipedia in general-bears directly upon the noteworthiness of this entry, or the substance of my argument.

It should also be noted that if it is not his job to defend this entry then he should cease to defend it.

Otherwise, it simply lends credence to my assertion that this is an advert.

Also, I'd like to point out that Burch's claim that a Conservative Underground user created this entry is a blatant, and quite self-serving, falsehood.

If his purported enemies did create an entry on his organization-a dubious claim on its face-they certainly would not have written one that has a favorable, or even neutral, tone.

My two cents.

72.68.172.20 18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How long would it take to learn Wikipedia formatting? About two minutes. Please realize this discussion is not just about our positions, but also that they are formatted in a manner that most people can follow. If you cannot present your positions clearly, you cannot expect others to be able to understand the discussion as a whole. Your response here indicates a lack of deference to the Wikipedia and our usual ways of discussing matters. That doesn't help your position. It hurts it.
Further, just because it is not his job to defend the subject of this article doesn't mean he can't. However, I do believe it is a conflict of interest for someone who originally wrote or heavily contributed to the article under Afd to vote on its deletion. And that also goes for someone who owns the entity that is described by the article. I believe administrators discount or ignore such votes. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Burch has not come forward with any evidence to demonstrate that "many" believe his website to be an "indispensable" resource, nor has his claim that LGF, i.e. Charles Johnson, not a user on that website, mentioned him or his website been born out.

72.68.172.20 18:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that a majority voted in favor of deletion the last go-round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_White_Rose_Society_%28website%29

Much the same as in Burch's transparently partisan attempt to delete Conservative Underground.

The only difference being that in the former the decision of the majority was ignored, and this entry retained for some inexplicable reason.

Tell ANOTHER lie. CU was deleted in a process I did not participate in. You can lie about it all you like of course... BenBurch 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that more than just a majority is required for an article to be deleted. Here's another area where learning about how the Wikipedia works could prove useful for you, Anonymous One. It requires a super-majority of what I would call "non-conflicted" votes, that is, votes that aren't sockpuppets, and votes that have no conflict of interest. Also, I think admins look at whether something has been renominated too soon after its previous nomination--if it is too soon, the result here may be possibly voided. This is all my understanding, of course, as I am not an administrator (at this time, heh). —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 17:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Delete'

72.68.191.165 21:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Politically motivated revenge AfDs should not be rewarded. Neither this one nor the PW one ought to go forward. Shame on on jinxmchue. You pretend to have the interests of this encyclopedia in mind, but you are simply playing a cynical game. You are beneath contempt, as is Mr. Burch for having nominated PW. 62.101.75.14 23:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turnabout is fair play.

If Wikipedia wants to address the legitimate issues raised by its detractors it needs to ensure that avowed partisans, such as Mr. Burch, have no role to play-whatsoever and under any circumstances-in the moderation or deletion process.

72.68.187.150 01:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This page seems to be absolutely harmless to Wikipedia. It brings into the Wiki new information in the form of the actual existance of a number of Liberal/Progressive talk radio shows. Reading the above, it seems to me that the only people arguing otherwise (other that Mr. Burch himself - are you sure that is really him and not a vandal?) are people who are trying to get back at Mr. Burch for another AfD. I simply cannot imagine that this process we see here serves any interest whatsoever. I think the closing administrator ought to declare this a keep for simple vitriol and meatpuppetry. 213.59.99.178 01:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You apparently did not notice the Wiki admin-I believe that's what they're called here-who voted to delete, upon further reflection.

Or the other (liberal) Wiki users who voted to delete.

And yes, that vituperative, loutish fellow who uses the name Ben Burch is actually Ben Burch in real life.

Perhaps you should consider that, and reflect upon what it says about the administrative controls in place at this website.

Food for thought?

72.68.187.150 02:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Anonymous Coward, I saw that StevieTheMan changed his vote; For reasons having to do with whether this page belonged in an encyclopedia. And I also saw that Mr. Burch followed suit. He (Mr. Burch) Seems to be an honorable man. You, however seem to be a cowardly sniper. [Vulgar sentence removed. Even I know there's absolutely no need for that here. Jinxmchue 02:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)] 213.59.99.178 02:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO.

I'm sure you don't see the irony in that statement.

That would require a few extra brain cells, oui?

Burch is not honorable in any way, shape, or form.

Even as he disclaims ownership of this entry he is feverishly trolling for votes at the DU hive.

BTW, is this anonymous user-who's laced his inarticulate reply with expletives and personal attacks-going to be given a warning, as I have on repeated occasions for much lighter infractions?

This is why Wikipedia's impartiality is open to question, IMHO.

72.68.187.150 02:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I am this close to protecting this page such that anons cannot further comment, as this has degenerated into mudslinging at Burch, the nominator, liberals, conservatives, and Wikipedia as a whole. Please stop wasting time with accusations about those participating in this discussion and confine your comments to the article in question. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I hereby withdraw from this debate.

Too acrimonious, too heated, and not what I use the Internet for.

If you wish, you may remove my "delete" vote.

Whether this article is kept or removed is of little importance to me.

72.68.187.150 02:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, my concern is for Wikipedia's intellectual integrity, not whether his website meets notability standards.

I think the same rules should apply across the board, e.g. with respect to CU, PW, and any other organization-be it from the left or the right-which is worthy of an online encyclopedic entry.

72.68.187.150 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. I believe that. Right. BenBurch 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I said that people had to stop commenting on the users and confine their comments to the article in question, that applied to you, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, please understand that being repeatedly lied about has me just a bit cheesed. BenBurch 04:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have impartial rules. See WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete other users' comments. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Begging your pardon, but what comment did I delete? If I did it was inadvertent. BenBurch 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You deleted my comment above twice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Mea Culpa! It was unintentional. I edited the whole article in an external editor because the edit window is so hard to work in, and I should have made sure it had not been touched in between. BenBurch 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does this constitute meatpuppetry?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=98575&mesg_id=98575

Impartial standards.

That's all I ask for.

72.68.187.222 15:07, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have some reading comprehension issues. That was JANUARY. Not now. BenBurch 15:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users of White Rose and Wikipedia, please read.

There is a vote I would call to your attention; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_del...

Also, please kick this post.

"Please kick this post."

Those are Ben Burch's precise words.

Does Wikipedia condone this?

If not, then I think this is a prima facie case for speedy deletion.

72.68.187.222 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem... That was the PREVIOUS AfD. In other words. That was a LIE of OMISSION, having nothing whatsoever to do with the present process. BenBurch 15:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, a lie of omission is still a lie.

The fact that you used DU-I presume that you are a moderator, or hold some comparably powerful position there-in order to prim the pump is a matter of public record.

Presumably, all-or some-of the DUers who tried to rig the previous vote have contributed to this afd.

72.68.187.222 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Ahem... It was YOU who lied by omission here by conveniently hiding the fact that the date was half a year ago. Also 72.68.187.xxx shows up a lot. These addresses are all DHCP pool addresses attached to nycmny.east.verizon.net and are likely one person resetting his or her cablemodem to obtain new DHCP leases. BenBurch 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and, I hold NO position whatsoever at DU, other than being generally loved there for my postings and in gratitude for the totally unique audio archive I offer. And I don't think the DU community is even aware of this vote, as I have not made them aware of it, and I doubt that many of them are Wikipedia editors who hang out in the AfD list. BenBurch 15:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that there are many DUers who would vigorously contest that assertion, if they were allowed to do so without fear of reprisals.

We all know what a "protected poster" is, and the phrase is applicable to just about any medium-sized or large Internet message board/forum.

Let's not pretend that we were all born last week, hmm?

72.68.187.222 15:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear sir or madam, if you could only see the string of administrator warnings I have gotten on DU, you would be aware that the management does NOT love me, and that I have been skating on thin ice there for quite some time. But I know exactly how much I can get away with, and stay just under the bar. You are grasping at straws with this one creating an unprovable straw man in order to create the perception that I am some sort of God at DU. Well, I'm not. I am a continual thorn in management's side, and an agitator. I probably have more locked threads and more deleted postings than anybody there today. BenBurch 15:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why have I seen allegations to the contrary from former (expelled) members of DU?


72.68.187.222 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. BenBurch 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinkst thou doth protest too much.

72.68.187.222 15:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With pleasure.

Thread locked at the request of DU's favorite non-mod mod:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4666288

A case of mistaken identity:

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum/showthread.php?t=55266

Another Wikipedian exposes you:

http://liberalunderground.activeboard.com/index.spark?forumID=60876&subForumID=208875&action=viewTopic&commentID=7355303&topicPage=

I could go on and on, believe me.

72.68.187.222 15:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And all that proves what? That half a year ago I didn't understand the Wiki process? Or that my machine here got hacked by one of the CUers? Or that Reverend Mykeru doesn't like me much? Try again... BenBurch 16:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation, i.e. that someone "hacked" you, is not believable, in my humble estimation.

Where is the proof that someone else-a purported "enemy" of yours-created this entry, rather than you yourself?

72.68.174.203 16:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have been stalking me for years now. I think you are insane. BenBurch 16:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A. I haven't been stalking anyone.

B. If I did choose to stalk someone-which I never would, because unlike you I'm not an obsessive freak-I certainly wouldn't decide upon a grotesquely obese, malicious, reflexive leftbot who is completely unknown-outside of that small world known as political message boards-as the object of my (recipocrated) attention.

C. This is the first-and hopefully, the last-time that I've had the unpleasant experience of dealing with you.

D. You've brought this upon yourself by abusing your privileges as a Wikipedian in order to further your own parochial, tendentious political agenda.

E. Prove that you didn't create this laudatory advert, or be prepared to retract that assertion.

72.68.174.203 16:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I would like to know why you haven't nominated your personal (vanity) article, i.e. Ben Burch, for deletion, if you believe so strongly that it is not worthy of its own encyclopedic entry.

72.68.174.203 16:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus far, I've counted 15 "keeps" to 13 "deletes" on this page, whereas the PW wiki is running 3-1 against you.

Tell me again how your website is more noteworthy than Protest Warrior...

72.68.174.203 17:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How so?

It speaks directly to the subject matter at hand, i.e. afd nominations that were made in bad faith, and implicitly, for partisan political purposes.

Furthermore, why did it take until January 3rd-of this year-to create an article about such a noteworthy subject?

Namely, a website for "progressive talk" that has been in existence for nearly four years.

72.68.174.203 17:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Against *me*? This process is about the noteworthiness of Wiki pages not about me. Don't you understand anything at all about Wikipedia? This isn't some sort of popularity contest here. My opinion is that PW is non-notable. I registered that opinion by beginning the AfD. Others register their opinions, and in the end an administrator looks at the collection of arguments for or against in the AfD and decides. He or she can even decide to ignore the whole discussion and keep or delete an article based on his or her own opinion. This is why administrators here are chosen carefully as being the most fair of the fair of all senior wiki editors. I think you absolutely fail to understand this at all. It might have escaped your notice, as you keep arguing for the present article's deletion that I have myself given my opinion that White Rose is an un-encyclopedic entry, and listed it as weak delete. I have also asked that the CU entry be restored in the discussion about that. Please learn a little about the wiki process before you post here again. Additionally, pages get created when they get created, and many items that ought to be here are not here yet at all! You absolutely cannot use the date of the creation of a page as any indicator of its notability! Otherwise there are hundreds and hundreds of recent articles that must be non-notable! BenBurch 17:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What other venues decide about a Wikipedia article undergoing Afd is wholly irrelevant. Further, there are mounds of noteworthy subjects that don't have Wikipedia articles still today. It's important to realize that the number of very active Wikipedia authors is rather small (something like 1,000, according to Jimmy Wales as he stated in a recent article). It will take quite a bit of time before *all* notable subjects are covered here. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, I have several pages I have been writing and need to finish and get uploaded. BenBurch 18:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Mr. Burch, if he thought that CU-whose traffic rank dwarfs his website, and to the best of my knowledge, always has-was notable, then he should never have nominated it for deletion the first time around.

This newfound contrition strikes me as insincere, to be perfectly honest.

I am not imputing any false or negative motivations to Wikipedia administrators-or suggesting that any of them come to this process with ill will, or that they would act as anything but the most impartial arbiters-only asking a very simple question.

Why is an avowed partisan such as Mr. Burch-and he is perfectly entitled to be a partisan on other fora-who has repeatedly demonstrated that he can not act in an unbiased manner while on Wikipedia, entrusted with so much power?

71.125.240.18 18:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his own user talk page: 

A large fraction of those 40,000 would come here and vote if I asked them to.

In any case, I have no stake in either the White Rose entry or the Ben Burch entry.

They were not created by me, but rather by "Sammy The Squidboy" from Conservative Underground in some sort of attempt to humiliate me with facts that I write about everywhere... 

BenBurch 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

71.125.240.18 18:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Power? You really have no conception of how Wikipedia works, do you? You, yourself, as an anonymous IP troll could start the AfD process on any page. In fact, if you think the Democratic Underground page is unworthy, why don't you try? As for CU "dwarfing" WRS? Pull the other one! Has CU ever had 17,000 unique visitors in any given week? Even once? And traffic-wise, has CU ever sent out more than 100GB in a whole month? I send out 6000 GB or better every month. What a joke. BenBurch 18:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of GB of storage-or the amount that you send-equating to noteworthiness is a canard, which has already been debunked upthread.

I'm certain that there are obscure mp3 file-sharing sites that store-and send-hundreds of GB, and which hardly anyone visits on a frequent basis.

Here's the Alexa ranking for the site that you saw fit to delete:

Traffic Rank for conservativeunderground.com: 41,596

Here's the ranking for your primarily vanity site:

Traffic Rank for whiterosesociety.org: 177,352

Here's a side-by-side comparison, for edification purposes:

http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?compare_sites=conservativeunderground.com&range=6m&size=medium&y=r&url=whiterosesociety.org

FYI, that's daily reach per million users.

You fail, again.

71.125.240.18 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An "anonymous IP troll?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that uncalled for derogation, i.e. "troll," fall under the rubric of "personal attacks?"

Are you going to allow that to stand?

Just curious.

71.125.240.18 18:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, that is not simply my personal opinion.

I'm merely reiterating what a Wikipedian stated earlier in this discussion, which led him to reconsider his initial vote, and question the validity of Ben's nominations, re: afd.

71.125.240.18 19:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... I have to keep educating you, don't I. Alexa does not track either XML podcast traffic or MP-3 traffic at all. Look at the statistics I posted above, and you will find that, even on my root server that serves ALL of my html, html traffic is only 0.36% of the traffic of the site. White Rose is simply not a message board or an html stite, though it uses some html and Alexa does not and cannot measure it in any meaningful way! BenBurch 19:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you don't have to look it up for yourself here is the last seven days on the root server;
Successful requests: 305,830
Average successful requests per day: 43,685
Successful requests for pages: 29,298
Average successful requests for pages per day: 4,184
Failed requests: 6,556
Redirected requests: 15
Distinct files requested: 485
Distinct hosts served: 18,724
Corrupt logfile lines: 8,942
Unwanted logfile entries: 10,419,481
Data transferred: 130.66 gigabytes
Average data transferred per day: 18.66 gigabytes BenBurch 19:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, there's absolutely nothing that you need to educate me on that is worth knowing, as your numerous spelling, syntactical, and grammatical errors on this page-among others-attest to.

It is an obscure site, which is not even well-known among that small subset of the American public that listens to liberal talk radio.

Air America-despite its dismal Arbitron ratings in almost every market-is notable, simply for the fact that it has attracted a disproportionate share of media attention.

Thus far you have come forward with little to no evidence to demonstrate that your site-or you yourself-are worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia in the same manner.

71.125.240.18 19:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also be interested in knowing just why, if this article's deletion or retention is of so little concern to you, you have invested so much time and effort in relentlessly defending it from potential deletion.

If that were the case, you would assume that your time could be better spent elsewhere, e.g. in promoting your current, indescribably successful, pledge drive.

71.125.240.18 19:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'll not tolerate lies by the likes of you. And if the you polled the listeners of the Mike Malloy show or Head On with Bob Kincaid, or The Morning Wake-Up call with Lizz Brown, nearly 100% of them would know about the site, so that was yet another LIE. Nope Al Franken listeners don't know I exist. I don't archive his boring show. BenBurch 19:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_White_Rose_Society_(website)_2nd_nomination&oldid=59315076"