The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. (defaults to keep) W.marsh 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party[edit]

Libertarian National Socialist Green Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This "group" does not exist. The article mentions more than once that it might be a joke, and says that they only thing "they" apparently do is run a website. The talk page is full of people asking over and over for reliable sources, but no one answers. From reading the talk page, it apparently survived a VFD back in December 2003 or January 2004, but sourcing was a lot looser back then. These days, it fails WP:Verifiability and WP:Notability. — coelacan talk — 12:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I forgot to answer these earlier. These links are completely unacceptable. The first, I have already dealt with in my reply to WMMartin below; it contains a single sentence that Weise posted messages on nazi.org, and then it quotes from their press release. Completely trivial, and nothing to write an article from. The second, a CNN transcript, has two sentences, one saying Weise posted there, the other with some CNN commentator saying essentially "I browsed the website!" The third has no content at all, it's just a list, no hint of a reliable source whatsoever, and it's on a K-12 teacher's website (nothing scholarly, for sure). The fourth, an MTV link, has one sentence and again quotes from the nazi.org press release. The fifth is a Yahoo Answers link that contains a cut and paste of Wikipedia's Bill White article! The links themselves are very strong arguments for just mentioning the site at Jeff Weise and Bill White (no real need for a merge, even), and at the very best leaving this page as a redirect to Bill White. I wouldn't see much to gain from such a redirect, but others here seem to think that's better, and I'm not dismissing that opinion; I just don't share it. — coelacan talk — 18:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also that the fact that Bill White has run in elections has nothing to do with nazi.org, as he did not run as their representative. He runs in elections but never for them, and he's not even a member, he just picked up the opportunity to advertise himself as Public Relations for nazi.org after Weise's incident; this is all very clear upon reading White's article. — coelacan talk — 18:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe you know it's logically impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. However, one of the article's external links, this from Reason (magazine), explains what was found through some investigation of the forums. That article makes a coherent case for it being a hoax, as it is apparently a joke site of Craig Smith's, who doesn't even touch it anymore. — coelacan talk — 21:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nazi.org is notable on its own, then there will be third party coverage out there, independent of the situations involving Bill White and Jeff Weise. There is no such coverage. There is no notability for nazi.org except as it pertains to these two individuals, and so it should not have its own article but should simply be mentioned in those individuals' articles. The point of WP:N#The primary notability criterion is that "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. [And] In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." The problem with this article is that because all the sources are really about Jeff Weise and Bill White, the coverage of nazi.org is all trivial. There is not enough non-trivial coverage to write a verifiable, npov article about nazi.org. This is a controversial topic, which is why it's extremely important that the content of the article be verifiable, however, with the triviality of the sources, this is impossible. So the article can never be encyclopedic. The best mention that nazi.org can get is passing references in the Bill White and Jeff Weise articles, because it gets no substantial coverage in the third-party sources that we would need to write an article from. — coelacan talk — 07:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, take content and merge to The Bill White or Jeff Weise articles. This info should go somewhere so please don't delete. MrMacMan 12:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're muddling the waters, WMMartin. The "Libertarian National Socialist Green Party" is nazi.org and nothing more. Your google cache of arizona.edu link states this quite clearly: it's about the nazi.org forum, and they didn't study the "Party", they simply used that webforum as an example of how a "hot thread"-detecting metric works.[6] That citation says absolutely nothing about the "Party", what they "do", what they're about, anything. It's only the briefest of trivial mentions of nazi.org, in a computer science case study of a generic algorithm. The fact is that all these links you've come up with are trivial, and thus they all fail WP:N (which says the sources must be non-trivial), because you can't write an article from them. Let's actually look at the links you've provided (the reader is strongly encouraged to actually click on these links and follow along). Besides the google cache of arizona.edu, you've got something from artsandlettersmagazine.com,[7] which has two sentences, both saying that the "Party" issued a statement: they "refused to wring hands over a 'tragedy'...", etc. Does this tell us anything we can write an article from? No, it belongs in Jeff Weise's article, because it doesn't inform us at all about the "Party". Let's look at your NPR link.[8] It's about Weise, again, and it says that he posted lots of messages to lots of (other non-notable) neo-nazi web forums. It's got one sentence, at the very end, which says that Weise posted some messages to nazi.org. What does this tell us about the "Party"? What information here can we write an article from? We can certainly add the short reference into Jeff Weise's article, but that's it. Again, because you seem to have overlooked this, the point of WP:N#The primary notability criterion, which asks for non-trivial coverage, is that "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will have been researched, checked, and evaluated through publication in independent reliable sources. [And] In order to have a neutral article, a topic must be notable enough that the information about it will be from unbiased and unaffiliated sources; and that those interested in the article will not be exclusively partisan or fanatic editors." There's no non-trivial coverage yet to use. Let's look at the Guardian link,[9] which is again that exact same issued statement that was in the artsandlettersmagazine link. It's just direct quotation from nazi.org,[10] but no independent investigative reporting, no verifiability here. As http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/weise/ demonstrates, it's a press release, expressly forbidden by WP:N, which clearly says: "The "independence" qualification excludes all ... press releases". There's nothing more in the Guardian link besides a reprint of the press release, so this is both trivial and not independent. Still failing our simplest notability requirements. What about CNN?[11] One sentence that says Jeff Weise posted there, again, fine for his article, and then more reprinting of the nazi.org press release. There's absolutely nothing there, in all of those links, to write any kind of wp:verifiable article from. And the fact that nobody has actually bothered to investigate them is evidence that nazi.org is in fact non-notable; no journalists or academics are interested in them enough to study them and write anything approaching a wp:reliable source, because they have no notability whatsoever outside of the Jeff Weise and Bill White articles. — coelacan talk — 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll assume you weren't being intentionally disingenuous in saying that my words really amount to "keep". Even with honest intention, it's certainly not a fair argument. I believe I've been perfectly clear in the reasons why this article fails notability, and you haven't addressed those reasons. Simply, without reliable sources to write an article from, we cannot create a "relatively reliable guide" for anyone to read here. In addition to non-notabilty, the article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, and it fails hard, as I've demonstrated above. Discuss the sources if you like, but as the case currently stands, we have no verifiable content whatsoever except "Jeff Weise posted some messages and Bill White distributed a press release." And no one is showing up with better sources. — coelacan talk — 04:28, 18 February 2007 (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.
More