Jump to content

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

Add links
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 of the debate was no consensus. --bainer (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The White Rose Society (website)

[edit]

Closer's notes
This debate was split evenly down the middle numerically. However the main argument for keeping the article was that it was supposedly a revenge nomination for another article that was deleted, whereas the main argument for deleting the article was that it did not meet WP:WEB. When the acrimony has subsided, the result of this debate may be cited as trending towards delete.

In determining the final consensus, the comments of unregistered users were disregarded.

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. Weak keep - Mr. 71.125.x.x convinced me to change my vote because this topic is notable enough for him to spend his whole Sunday afternoon and evening on, then it MUST be notable enough for Wikipedia. I'd have left my vote as it was if he hadn't decided to insult anybody who showed up here to say a nice word about my site. I'll vote even though I am connected with the page. BenBurch 02:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC) - 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]
      • You're welcome. By the by, this user uses Firefox. And doesn't appreciate being called a Klansman, crypto- or otherwise. Rogue 9 22:58, 18 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]
  • COMMENT Just so y'all don't have to look it up for yourself here is the last seven days statistics on the White Rose on the root server, there being four others that have 10X faster pipes, but much lower CPU horsepower. This one handles the database, html, and actual XML files, the others handle 90% of the mp3 and streaming;
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 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone deleted-or moved-my reply.

In all fairness, this is becomeing more of a "talk" page.

71.125.240.18 20:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the History. An admin did that. Please keep on the specific topic of notability based on facts about the entry or the website was his request. Honor it, please. BenBurch 20:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, do you want me to break out the numbers on how many people actually listen to those radio hosts who mention your website on a daily basis?

In comparison to very, and even moderately popular talk show hosts?

Aggregate audience, share, etc...?

71.125.240.18 21:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do! I've never been able to find them myself. BenBurch 22:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, liberals were never known for their wit, although I admire your attempts at sarcasm.

Seriously, do you think Mike Malloy is more notable than Al Franken?

To the best of my knowledge no AAR host has distinguished him or herself in the ratings book, but the hosts you highlight are particularly obscure, at least in terms of generating large audiences of devoted listeners.

Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Laura Ingraham, among others, all have large numbers of listeners who disagree with their political point of view, which is a testament to their popularity, if nothing else.

Can you assert with any credibility that there is a single radio host you link to who reaches an audience beyond their own narrow political constituency?

71.125.240.18 22:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers, please? BenBurch 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Be patient.

Among all listeners 12+, it was a race to the bottom for AIR AMERICA and WLIB as mid-days went from a 1.6 share during winter 2005 to a 1.0 share winter 2006.

During PM drive, host Randi Rhodes plunged to 27,900 listeners every quarter hour, finishing 25th place in her time slot, down from 60,900 listeners every quarter hour in the fall.

http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2006/04/air-america-radio-wlib-randi-rhodes-al.html

One of the more popular hosts on your page.

In the recent ratings period, Air America in Austin didn't record any significant listeners under 25.

It might be a ratings anomaly, or maybe young liberals are simply listening to music, satellite radio, and podcasts.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2006-03-17/pols_feature.html

71.125.240.18 23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread acclaim from the liberal community for world-renowned talk show host Jay Marvin:

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/index.php?showtopic=75270

Widely-acclaimed talk personality Tony Trupiano gets massive media coverage from one of the most widely-cited Marxist, anti-American, radical Kurdish websites on the 'net:

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=1&p=18252&s2=29

71.125.240.18 23:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP - There wouldn't be anything like this much effort expended to CENSOR White Rose if you were not notable, Ben. We here love your archives and my iPod is filled with your podcasts each and every morning. We especially like the commercial-free edits you make to Thom Hartmann's show, and we also really enjoy Lizz Brown's show. BTW, When are you going to have an archive page for Bruce Burch's new show on the Head On Radio Network? I work when he is on the air and have not been able to listen yet! 82.119.205.115 00:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Specious logic.

The only reason any effort was exerted to delete this entry is because Burch is notorious for squelching any speech that he disagrees with, which led him to nominate CU and PW for deletion.

The controversy has nothing to do with the WRS itself, which is too obscure to merit comment, but rather the jihadist tactics of someone who is neither liberal, nor a supporter of free speech, despite claims to the contrary.

My own opinion is that if this entry is retained it should be merged with the wholly unnecessary Ben Burch Wiki, which even its subject has admitted is not noteworthy enough to keep as a stand-alone article.

71.125.240.18 00:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously a die-hard fan of his-and the shows he's archived-which leads me to believe that your "strong keep" recommendation has very little to do with the merit-or lack thereof-of this article, in my humble estimation.

If this article is to be retained it should not be retained on the basis of adulatory fans, who offer no impartial reasons for retention, unless you consider one's fanship reason enough for a permanent "keep."

71.125.240.18 00:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep This site is mention on the air daily on Mike Malloy's show, and he considers it to be his official archive site. Peter Werbe, Guy James, and Bob Kincaid never, ever do a show without mentioning White Rose and Ben Burch by name. 61.70.131.246 01:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those are no-name hosts.

The most famous being Mike Malloy, who was replaced by the Satellite Sisters on AAR's signature network, the retooled-and much worse, IMO-WLIB.

http://gammablog.com/?cat=52

I'm not saying that Malloy's Wiki should be removed, only that the fact that he refers to Burch-no matter how frequently-does not qualify Burch for a Wikipedia entry.

If Burch were a regular on a show hosted by an even moderately well-known celebrity, e.g. Al Franken, I would render a different opinion.

71.125.240.18 01:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the very least that should be done, if this entry is to be retained, is to merge the transparent vanity page, re: Ben Burch, with the larger stub on the White Rose Society.

I don't think even Burch himself would object to that course of action.

71.125.240.18 02:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even Ben Burch has not claimed that his website serves "tens of thousands" of people.

Perhaps it has "tens of thousands" of page-views, or has tens of thousands of visitors, however I find it extremely hard to believe that tens of thousands of people are utilizing this resource on a consistent basis.

Outside of Democratic Underground I have not seen it referred to-even in the most oblique way-by an even moderately popular website, let alone, touted by an extremely popular or well-known radio talk show host.

71.125.240.123 03:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment In lieu of removing comments that are viewed as tangential, or wholly irrelevant to this discussion, do you think a better idea might be to create a "talk" page for this entry?
    Simply a suggestion, feel free to disregard it. 71.125.240.123 04:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree.

If his case rests upon his association with these hosts-and from what I've observed, it does-don't you think that their popularity-or in this case, unpopularity-among the general public is pertinent to this discussion?

71.125.240.123 04:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with a reliable source associating him with them in some way other than providing an incidental service, I can't see how. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

I was referring to his claim-which I take at face-value-that his website is mentioned "nine times."

Either weekly, or daily.

I forget which.

He hasn't mentioned-to the best of my knowledge-that he's a correspondent for the Mike Malloy Show-which is alluded to in his Wiki-but I presume that he would cite that as another reason to retain this entry.

As I said before, if no consensus can be reached the simplest course of action would-in my opinion-be to simply merge the two Wikis.

Even Ben Burch has not objected to that, based upon his comments with respect to his own Wikipedia entry.

Granted, the notability of this website is a contested issue, but I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that Ben Burch-as an individual-merits an entire encyclopedic entry, even if it is merely a stub.

71.125.240.123 04:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • COMMENT - Actually, yes, "tens of thousands" is not a stretch, nor would be "Nearly a quarter million";


Analysed requests from Sun-06-Nov-2005 06:26 to Mon-19-Jun-2006 01:19 (224.79 days).

(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 19-Jun-2006 01:18).

Yet another unverifiable dump of raw data removed by A Man In Bl♟ck BenBurch 06:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to verify it, A Man In Black, I'll send you the entire log file. It is amazingly large, though. BenBurch 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazingly large is 2,054,289,706 bytes. BenBurch 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not seeing how this data/IPs served info (which isn't sourced to a reliable source, natch) has anything to do with WP:WEB. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well, it shows that 274,691 distinct IP addresses accessed the site over the 224 days since the log file was started. And that is not fully inclusive as it misses the servers where most of the binaries are, and the icecast streams. Are distinct IP addresses equivalent to distinct users? Most web sites take them as such. So, somehow, a quarter of a million distinct people found and used the site in that interval. The vast majority of them went after the three Air America hosts; Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, and Randi Rhodes. Said content is provided by permission from a well-known and notable entity. Indeed, in the case of Thom Hartmann, I am a contractual publisher of his material and pay a sizable royalty fee for it. But this is not actually Web-Specific content. It is RADIO content, translated into a form that can be hosted on the web. This makes White Rose much more like Live365 than like Drudge Report. Live365 produces no content, but it is notable because it serves so much of the streaming content of others. Likewise, I produce very little content, but WRS is notable because it archives, podcasts, and streams so much of the content of notable entities, and does it for so many people. BenBurch 06:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read WP:WEB? (It is also a mistake to conflate unique IPs with individual users.) Live365 is notable because finding commentary on it in a reliable source is trivially easy. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, but White Rose doesn't exactly fall into the categories it pertains to. As to a Reliable Sources? The only press mention that I know of is here; [6] But the web sites for the shows I archive, which are all acceptable primary sources as they are the web sites of established notable business entities do mention or link to White Rose, here are a few; [7] [8] [9] [10] Also there are any number of mentions on established blogs, including bradblog, atrios, takebackthemedia, bartcop, dubyad40.com. Just explore [11] and [12] for MANY such mentions. If that's not enough, then I guess there is not enough, but I'd wager that is more than some other pages well established on wiki have. BenBurch 07:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we're clear, there are no non-trivial mentions from reliable sources (other than advertising the site), the site hasn't won any awards, and the venue issue doesn't really apply. Correct? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the press mention is nontrivial, and it won the Democratic Media Award in 2005 and 2006; http://www.goodwriters.net/dmr2.html and many of the mentions in the google search are to articles written that refer to specific show or specific stream, some of them by political candidates wishing to call attention to themselves for interviews they did on the various shows. BenBurch 07:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That site mentions White Rose in passing as a "liberal talk show site" (and does not elaborate further, making it a trivial reference) and the Goodwriters link seems to just be a link page. Can you provide me with a citation from a RELIABLE SOURCE (not a blog, not a forum) that mentions WRS more than in passing? (Meaning, not "Download our older shows here" or somebody's link page or whatnot.) Without that, WRS is less like a service like Live365 and more like non-notable site that hosts notable primary works, no more noteworthy than a site that hosts pictures of notable paintings or scripts of notable movies. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is the standard no site like mine would qualify. I have politicians refer to the site [13] and lots of the blog mentions are similar to this one [14] the on-aie mentions sound like this [15] And Democratic Media Award HAS a web listing, but that is not the award. BenBurch 07:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there's no way to source any non-trivial claim this article might make? As far as I can tell, the only verifiable thing this article can claim is "The White Rose Society hosts show X, Y, and Z." There are no-outside, reliable sources even stating that you run it. This is a problem, and this is why we don't have articles on these sorts of minor sites. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_White_Rose_Society_(website)_2nd_nomination&oldid=1144676125"