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 60-40 split on this page, not enough majority to get it deleted.. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 20:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE

If you came to this page from http://www.democraticunderground.com or some similar site outside of Wikipedia wishing to affect the deletion decision process, please be aware that the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry allows for all comments made by new or anonymous contributors to be ignored. In addition, the Wikipedia policy at Wikipedia:Civility allows for any contributor acting in an uncivil manner to be blocked from the site.

The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Note to closing Admin, please check this page carefully for any legitimate votes that may have been dropped. There was a lot of reverting and anon voting and vandalism here. Thanks.

Please register your vote by typing in *'''Delete''' - optional reason -~~~~ or *'''Keep''', or '''Merge''' - optional reason -~~~~ below. Please limit discussion to the Discussion subsection of this voting area. Thank you for participating. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new statements to the bottom. Thanks. — TheKMan^talk 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable vanity article. Holdek ^(talk) 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For those who think Alexis.com is the best place to really evaluate websites. Trust me, it's not. Alexis requires spyware toolbar to be installed. Most of the informed people don't even use it at all. White Rose Society is a fair and balanced archives for left-talk shows and as if we have too many syndicated right-wing hatefests all over the United States that wants to suppress dissenting voices. So, I view this a seperate entity from Ben Burch, and does a incredible job with limited resources! - Dustpuppy303 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dustpuppy303 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep 82,789 registered users at DemocraticUnderground.com would find this a meaningful description. I think the way to get out of the political quagmire is not to determine which side is right, but to rise above the issue. I applaud Wikipedia's attempt to civilize this discussion. Good luck with that. The White Rose Society is a part of the fabric of today's world. To choose not to like it is fine. To censor it, proves many of the points made by those the website features. --Tigress DEM 04:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the conspiracy theorists out there. I'm not a sock puppet. Had to look that up. And I made a novice mistake. I copied a previous post because all the html formatting made me think I had to have a text descriptor. I thought 'nondomesticspying' was 'nondomestictyping' and needed to complete a format loop. When I realized it was someone's login name I took it off. --Tigress DEM 05:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is the first edit by Tigress DEM, but has two others under the name nodomesticspying. InvictusNox 04:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

On what basis do you allege these are the same person? That they share an IP address? That tells you little as many universities have all students sharing one IP address, for example. BenBurch 05:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

He alleges that on the basis of the fact that she signed it as nodomesticspying while logged in as Tigress DEM, then realized what she'd done and changed it. See this edit. Logged in users' IP addresses are unknown to all but a very few admins. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And if they are domestic partners? Then the cookie would still have been on the shared computer. This does not make them the same person, no matter how much you would like it to be so. BenBurch 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the constant meatpuppetry going on with this nomination, it is difficult to assume the best. After all, what's stopping my nine livein brothers and sisters from voting "delete"? Lord Bob 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you really have nine sibs living there, nothing, nor should there be. BenBurch 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have nine siblings living with me, but how could you tell (beyond my say-so)? 'One IP address, one vote' might not seem very democratic, but this isn't a democracy and given the situation, I'm well-inclined to hope the closing admin plays it safe in all respects. Lord Bob 16:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Performs useful service and provides valuable information. nodomesticspying

This comment is the second edit by Nodomestic spying, the first being another keep vote below. --Allen3 ^talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Great source for liberal info. User:Generic O

This comment is the first edit by Generic O. --Allen3 ^talk 23:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. User wants to delete for reasons that have to do with that user's POV. Comes up with other threshold reasons to rationalize. User has a documented history of edit warring. Also, if this page is deleted, a knowledge hole is created that the disambiguation page isn't intended/designed/adequate to resolve. BusterD 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I moved the nominator's originial edit to the top, so other users could see who nominated the article, and why. — TheKMan^talk 04:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. whiterosesociety.org streams and archives a lot of audio programs, both well-known and obscure. It's a very useful resource. Blue Llama 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A "Vanity" article would have to have been created by the website's owner, me. It wasn't. The site has delivered five million hours of liberal/progressive talk radio since 2002, and this deletion campaign seems to be "payback" from Holdek for my having complained about him for a 3RR violation. Unseemly, but there you have it. BenBurch 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Payback or not, this website rates extremely poorly on Alexa.com and this is reason enough to delete. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was just about to mention the site's Alexa rating of 181,810, which fails the cutoff established in WP:GOOGLE -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB per Thesquire Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 09:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Ben Burch as per WP:WEB#fn_2, since the website offers podcasting and archiving for radiostations most of which are notable. It also sounds like a bad faith nomination in revenge to a WP:3RR on January 8. Dr Debug 11:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as insignificant per above. And how on earth did Ben Burch end up with his own article?? That should absolutely go too. Eusebeus 16:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP White Rose is a useful site to thousands - and right wing complaints should not be the Wikipedia delete decision maker. Papau 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Just as significant as thousands of other entries, if not more so. Bbernardini
  • User's only edits are to this page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Ben does us all a service with this site and doesn't deserve to have this page deleted! Is there a bandwidth issue here that requires you to delete some pages? If so I'm sure there are many other suitable candidates. 72.136.206.89 23:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) AnonymousArmy[reply]

Well, I appreciate that coming from you given our past differences. Thanks. BenBurch 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge. Useful site. WPWiles 18:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's 5th edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. It seems like the only content on the article is a list of items found on the website - this could be combined with the Ben Burch article (or, alternatively, expanded upon to include more history). I don't really think there is enough relavant information that would warrant a seperate article, right now though. --Toddbloom7 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP White Rose is a valuable resource for many progressives, who, at least up until now, also have the right to have their voices heard. Ben Burch is a true patriot.Sweetm2475 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete . I don't think this article has useful purpose. Wikipedia should strive to remain an encyclopedia on par with other well-known references. Putting up an entry to serve as a portal amounts to turning Wikipedia into a directed google search. I would be inclined to keep this article if there were some educational merit to the content, but currently it reads as an advertisement for another website. What's next, an article for cheaptickets.com extolling it as place for bargain airline fares? While I'm sure The White Rose Society website serves a large user base that enjoys what is has to offer, I don't think that neccesitates a need for an entry. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your favorite website. Also, currently DU has been called on to "DU" this site so expect to be flooded with keeps. I mean, the fact a message board close to The White Rose Society has been called upon to slant this discussion... recommend to lock. -m00

• Delete M00 does that help?
  • User's only two edits are to this page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above user neglects to mention a similar campaign to urge the deletion of the entry, originating from a website ideologically opposed to DU, and his self-confessed role in it. So, all's fair, eh? WPWiles 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets talk about this on the dicussion page. I am a huge supporter of Wikipedia. I have nothing against The White Rose Society Website, I just see the article as adverstisement and wikispam/wikiclutter. -m00

I agree it's a marginal case for retention, but I think the thing that swings it into the "keep" column is the fact that it is an archive, a resource, rather than simply a soapbox that endlessly editorialises. Although liberals might find its content more palatable, the site is potentially useful to everyone with an interest in politics or broacasting, as would a similar conservative site. WPWiles 20:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree the White Rose Society Website might be useful to people interested in politics. But there are plenty of useful resources out there on the web -- does Wiki really need to link them all? I mean, could you explain why the Wiki entry is useful, as it merely links the site? I look at it like this: anyone interested in The White Rose Society website already knows it exists and can easily find it. If someone were to search Wiki for it "The White Rose Society Website" they'd come up with an article that links to thate site. So who exactly is that article for? -m00

The poor quality of the wiki entry is an argument for improving the wiki entry, not deleting it. I think that this entry, Ben Burch's own entry, and several other entries in the same "genre" such as those for DU, CU and William Rivers Pitt, are very inadequate, probably as a result of coordinated edit campaigns by both sides. WPWiles 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then write some useful content! As it stands, the entry is totally useless, and adds absolutely zero to Wikipedia. It's just a link. If someone wants to add content where I could see a case that the article might possibly be of use to someone, I'll change my vote. And you are correct these topics end up being biased due to edit wars. Maybe we need to merge CU, DU, Will Pitt, and everything that's basically two warring Internet factions into a single article called "political activism on the Internet." I'd be for that, since I agree this is getting out of hand! -m00

m00 - Jackk only created the stub article for White Rose on the 2nd of this month, you know. How many other articles are fleshed out in so little time? And honestly, you can keep or delete this entry without that mattering to me or my website one iota, but this whole discussion reflects badly on the neutrality of Wikipedia, and I have had a teacher email to me say "see, this is why I will not allow students to use Wikipedia as a source!" And I sadly have to concur with her. BenBurch 00:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a notable website, sockpuppets must die. Lord Bob 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Does not follow Wiki standards. Furthermore, if there is an influx of anon. voters who vote to keep, BenBurch is trying to rally support to skew this for him: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=98575&mesg_id=98575InvictusNox 19:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User only has 1 edit in article space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Edit: Reading over the responses, I agree with Dr.Debug that this article should be merged with Ben Burch, as both relatively hold the same content and this would fall more in line with wiki standards. InvictusNox 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The website is too obscure and the article in question is used for promotion purposes This1 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Tacky and shameful" is launching a delete page entry campaign out of spite. you petty petty "right wing" fascists. (aww darn better go get more edits so I can join Zoe's friends list)Freepersh8truth 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User's only edits are to this page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The proposal for deletion seems to be politically motivated and should be ignored for that fact alone; there are numerous far more questionable entries. On the other hand the page begs a few questions regarding copyright of the offered material and the name is borderline tasteles considering the real white rose. --HBS 19:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the material offered on The White Rose society is offered with consent of the Copyright holders and the radiostations / websites often refer to it as well. It is a free service available for progressive radiostations who are interesting in maintaining an archive of their material. Dr Debug 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I have the endorsement of living relatives of the Scholls. So I feel I have every right to use the name, especially with the Bush Administration acting more and more like Italian Fascists each and every day. BenBurch 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not conform to Wiki standards and is being used to simply advertise an individual's website. Furthermore, the webmaster of "The White Rose Society" has asked partisans on a Democratic Party forum to vote 'Keep'[1]. 0nslaught 20:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User only has 5 edits in article space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nn website. I have deleted all unsigned votes. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN website. 181,810 page rank on Alexa. [2] Hardly notable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. These same freaks tried to get Will Pitt's entry deleted a few weeks ago without success. And Zoe, I unstruck all of "Keep" votes you struck. I guess you were the one who deleted the keep votes from before, huh. Strange how pubbies like to cheat. Kaitykaity 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)kaitykaity[reply]
  • User's only edits are to this page. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mutleyrus

• User only has 5 previous edits, and none since May. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so?

• Delete No indication that this site meets WP:WEB and in its current form appears to violate WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Allen3 ^talk 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As I said earlier (before I was signed in) personal disputes and tantrums have no place making Wikipedia decisions. The request for deletion obviously stems from personal and political differences, and should be struck down on that alone. Wikipedia is not a battleground. Furthermore, the article doesn't contain anything which I can see that violates the rules. It's NPOV-safe, and is notable for the large archives involved. Political hissy fits aside, there's no reason to delete it. ADB

• User's only edit. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wars between rival internet groups aside, this should not be a Wikipedia article unless there can be some verification that it is significant. Can someone provide links to multiple independent sources discussing this website? If not, then WP:WEB applies and it should go. Ziggurat 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, Ziggurat; [3] BenBurch 04:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Political and personal differences should not have a say conerning Whiterosesociety.org and Wikimedia. There are other forums for that.

This comment is the first edit by Nodomestic spying. --Allen3 ^talk 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I routinely vote delete on articles like this. A not especially notable site, article reads like an ad. I am not American and have no strong feelings about the subject matter one way or the other. --kingboyk 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite what members of Democratic Underground or any other internet community may think, This website simply is not notable nough to merit a mention. -- Nightowl1335
  • User only has one edit in article space. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Does not appear to meet criteria in WP:WEB. Movementarian (Talk) 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable website. — TheKMan^talk 23:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable site; little more than a vanity site.--Susan N.

• • Edit above in actuality by User:66.53.124.223. User:Zoe|^(talk) 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The website in question, White Rose Society, is a very useful archive of radio talk shows. If a user hear would like to hear more from such personalities as Randi Rhodes, Mike Malloy, and others, they can go to the website. While I personally believe the website needs a face lift, I am supportive of it being mentioned on Wikipedia. Frankly, I enjoy coming to this site because it leads to websites AND information I had previously been unfamiliar with. One such website that I found via Wikipedia is the White Rose Society. I HIGHLY recommend that the article remain. Getting rid of the article stinks of book-burning. User:JeBousley

  vote actually by 66.141.94.47 (talk • contribs)

• Delete Ask yourself this, Wiki: outside of this debate, have you or anyone else you know ever heard of Ben Burch or the White Rose Society? -- Jimmy W.
  • Edit above in actuality by 68.184.71.81 (talk · contribs). --Allen3 ^talk 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Impersonating Jimbo Wales is tacky. However, White Rose (and often me) get mentioned daily on; Head On with Bob Kincaid, The Thom Hartmann Show, The Moring Wakeup Call with Lizz Brown, and weekly on "All Things Reconsidered", "Fourth Estate Radio", "They Guy James Show", and "The Cup-o-Joe Radio Show", so at least a few hundred thousand people know who I am by now... Doesn't mean I am notable, of course, as notable seems to be whatever people want it to mean to suit their present purposes here in Wikiland. BenBurch 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Revolución (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Website has been mentioned by national media repeatedly. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 02:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources please? Thanks — TheKMan^talk 02:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources? Go listen to the last ten minutes of any Mike Malloy show from the site, KMan... Or look at Mike's Web Page... Or Thom Hartmann's web page. BenBurch 02:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not meet the requirements of WP:WEB. Whether people love or hate the content on the site is irrelevant. --Krich (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:Web is a proposed policy, not an official policy like WP:Not. I agree that whether people love or hate the content on the site is irrelevant. The site has been mentioned on most Air America shows which are carried nationwide and on satellite radio, by name not by url. Several other examples are listed in previous comments. Not everyone here is a puppet quite a few voting to keep are established editors. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 03:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And those regular Wikipedia editors' votes have been left quite alone. User:Zoe|^(talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was not my intention to suggest otherwise. If you interpeted my statement that way, I apologize, and humbly state my correct intention. -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 05:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable podcast website. Annoying puppets :(. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-11 02:35Z
• Keep. It's notable _enough_ to merit a Wikipedia article. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It exists and there should be knowledge about it, but it does not seem that it should be expanded into a full entry by itself. Tyrenius 05:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrenius wishes to merge the article with Ben Burch [4]. — TheKMan^talk 22:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This website isn't a blog. It's an archival resource that some authors or speakers might well use. Therefore, some readers or listeners might want to know more about the site. An article about it is useful enough to keep. JamesMLane 10:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep keep It's an invaluable resource to many progressives, the significance of the site is in the millions of hours of progressive talkradio that have been served by it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.48.87 (talk • contribs) 11:25, January 11, 2006 (UTC)
• week Delete per "website ranking" test. Enough with the sockpuppets please! Your cheepening the entire wikipedia project. The system is more important then the issue. (Signed: J.Smith) 16:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Atlant 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't appreciate my comment being deleted. This is a useful resource, and the article is accurate. The calls for deletion are mostly politically motivated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aclearing (talk • contribs) 18:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Actually, most of the deletes are because of the notability & the 181,810 page rank on Alexa. diff --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, LV, what do you think Alexa measures? I believe it measures mostly people stupid enough to allow their spyware toolbar onto their machine in the first place, and ignorant enough of Windows to not be able to remove it later. And it measures no Macintosh, Linux, BSD, or Web TV users whatsoever... Certainly it has never measured me. BenBurch 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a slightly better view of traffic to my main page. Does not show direct traffic to sub-pages, or podcast hits, both substantial; [5] BenBurch 20:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and... You only need to visit the page ONCE to subscribe to a podcast... And even if Alexa measured you that one time, no further measurements will be taken of you even if you download 6 hours of shows every day. And many people do. BenBurch 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete low Alexa rank, fails WP:WEB, loads of sock/meatpuppets. Delete. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I do find it disappointing that some of the decisions here are being made due to personal political affiliations and motivations, and what really should be under observation is the article's merit as an encyclopedic entry. It is my impression that this website is an archive of other radio shows, so does that in itself make it noteworthy enough for an article in the Wikipedia? I, personally, think not. While many of the original radio programs were created by notable people, and featured on notable radio stations, I do not think an archive of those radio shows in itself makes a website notable. Regarding "website notability guidelines", yes, they are "just guidelines", but many Wikipedia users consider these guidelines useful for personally determining the notability of a website. Alexa gives the site a ranking of 181,810 [6]. Now, if articles were created for all of the websites that have higher rankings that the whiterosesociety.org, assuming they have not yet been created and using the article count as of now from the English Wikipedia (912,698), websites would take up nearly 20% of the Wikipedia. It should be noted that "the Wikipedia is not infinite", nor is it an Internet directory. Personally, I do not like how Alexa works, but for lack of a better ranking system, it is what we tend to use. Another way of establishing notability (at least for forum websites), is to check the number of forum users. Currently, the Democratic Underground has 82,820 registered users, which does make it notable in my eyes, and deserves its Wikipedia entry. (While not an entirely fair assessment since WRS is not primarily a forum community) the WRS society forum has 510 registered users (short of a generally accepted guideline of 5000 registered users). Please remember: deletion of the article does not mean the end of "the White Rose Society (website)". If the article is deleted, there is always the possibility that in the future the WRS will do something notable enough to warrant re-creation of the article and expansion. Now, if this website has made any other notable contributions to society, acheivements, or accomplishments, please say so and post related evidence, since everyone here still reserves the right to change their personal decsions at any time. Thanks for reading. — TheKMan^talk 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KMan... My argument against Alexa is that is basically CANNOT measure a site such as White Rose. It can only measure a site that people visit to read the pages. Since White Rose has become primarily a podcasting site, and Alexa misses ALL of that traffic, it doesn't bear any resemblance to the traffic to the site at all! And trust me, I have looked at this before while attempting to work on the visibility of the site, and decided it was close to worthless. Basically, if a totally unscientific measurement is good enough for you, that is up to you, but expect much more difficulty with such things in the future if you continue to use the work of a spyware vendor as a means of assessing the importance of a multimedia web entity. BenBurch 21:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the record of the number of podcasting xml hits on White Rose since logs were rolled over on Saturday;

dburch@server1:~$ sudo analog|grep xml 140954: 0.01%: 11/Jan/06 15:42: /freehartmann.xml

51918:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /malloy.xml
50332:       : 11/Jan/06 15:38: /hartmann.xml
32857:       : 11/Jan/06 15:36: /rhodes.xml
29050:       : 11/Jan/06 15:41: /james.xml
16313:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /werbe.xml
15190:       : 11/Jan/06 15:42: /content/hartmann/hartmann.xml
 8938:       : 11/Jan/06 15:34: /Kincaid.xml
 7449:       : 11/Jan/06 15:39: /Marvin.xml
 6181:       : 11/Jan/06 15:27: /vecchio.xml
 4794:       : 11/Jan/06 15:31: /brown.xml
 2159:       : 11/Jan/06 14:50: /trupiano.xml

dburch@server1:~$

Correct, Alexa measures website traffic. Now, it is my understanding that the podcasting content that is archived on your website does not require a user to visit to your website, but this content was not actually created by the WRS. I am examining the notability of The White Rose Society (website), the website, not the notable content of others that it archives. Does the website make any notable contributions of its own? — TheKMan^talk 21:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, created? Yes, some of the material was created by broadcasters who were given program development grants by WRS, and all of it was recorded, compressed, and archived by WRS. This involves four dedicated recording machines, not an insignificant task. (You try to do it.) And obtaining the rights to provide this material to the Internet public was a major effort in some cases. Also, in the case of the Thom Hartmann program, I pay big bucks in royalty payments for sole Internet archiving rights to the material. Basically, is the publisher who publishes Steven King's novels notable? I am an Internet-age publishing house. BenBurch 22:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I ran a LexisNexis search on "White Rose Society" and get one mention in the Anchorage Daily News for this particular WRS. Heck, even I've been mentioned one time in a newspaper of record. I just don't see it as being notable. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 21:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think LV is referring to this article. — TheKMan^talk 22:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep... that's the one. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thanks for finding that, guys! I was unaware of that mention. BenBurch 22:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ben Burch.--WinOne4TheGipper 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that the Ben Burch entry is likely to be deleted presently as I, myself, am not particularly notable. BenBurch 22:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Ben Burch, the Olympic hopeful rower. You're not right? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great. Shows how out of touch I am. I know more about DU's Burch than I know about a potential Olympian.:) Anyway, I don't think the Ben Burch article ought to be deleted, as I explained at it's AfD page. Frankly, I wish both sides would stop. The FR article is protected because some idiot keeps vandalizing it, and the articles for both Ben and Will Pitt have been put up for deletion so many times that it's no longer funny.--WinOne4TheGipper 23:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I smell a disambiguation page in my name's future. BenBurch 01:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Honestly, though I believe this is an appropriate Wikipedia entry, I didn't create it, and I don't care what gets done with this; I think it is nice to be in Wiki and all, but I wouldn't have even questioned this except for the fact that the motivation of so many seems to be political, and that offends me. But, as others have pointed out, having a White Rose external link on the page for each of the show hosts would be the only advertising that would make any difference, anyway! Nobody is going to come here and type in White Rose Society (website) who did not already know that it existed! Besides, I foresee a constant barrage of vandalism... BenBurch 01:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable, low rankings. Mike 02:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Frequently referred to on Air America Radio and frequently linked to on many left-leaning websites. Also helps for disambiguation purposes. Jackk 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable and causing WAY too much trouble. Stifle 22:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "Causing WAY too much trouble?" Jackk 09:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. FREEPERS RULE! LIE-BERALS DROOL! LONG LIVE THE FREE REPUBLIC! WHY DON'T YOU GO FIST HITLERY CLINTOON? 62.2.221.125 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote actually from 200.222.68.39 with the edit reason of (Fucking Whikipedia Commmietards!).User blanked page replacing it with the above message -- SusanLarson ^{(User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 14:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep If only to discourage such idiotic nominations. If this article is deleted as a result of this nomination it will happen again, and waste more peoples time. - Hayter 14:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sadly the converse is also true. If it's kept, somebody will at some point nominate it again. I'd respectfully suggest that we should concentrate on the merits of the article and the site's notability, and just quietly ignore the political squabble. --kingboyk 11:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have heard of the website and feel it is notable--Cenestrad 18:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, sockpuppeteering on both sides is making this difficult, but the site seems to be notable. Entry could use expanding, but I don't know anything about it. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as this site seems notable enough. Do we need to start protecting all politically controversial topics against sock puppets? Grandmasterka 07:28, 15 January 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.