Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Save Our State

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 keep. Johnleemk | Talk 13:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Save Our State

This page is completely biased in favor of a racist and naitonlist anti-immigrant group that is trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for recruitment. They have not allowed any edits to make content more even-sided, so they should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elzia (talk • contribs) .

Keep - these guys get covered in the LA news all the time, and have even made national headlines once or twice. If it is biased, it should be changed rather than deleted.--Rockero420 02:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete They are not allowing any modifications to the original text from outside parties. I tried to modify their content but they have deleted it within hours. The page is totally biased in their favor and I expect they will continue to keep it that way. Elzia 06:41 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Rockero420. A notable group with verifiable material available about them. Bias can be handled, though it may take more than a day. -Will Beback 02:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the solution to Eliza's problem is not to delete the article, but instead to get an admin involved if good edits are being reverted. Meekohi 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Political disputes over content need to be dealt with in a different way. Choalbaton 03:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --nihon 03:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It appears there are editing disputes over the content of the article, bias, especially in certain versions, and what should be included, but I believe the content is salvageable. Wholesale deletion of the article about a notable subject is not the best way to resolve WP:NPOV issues and content disputes. --Mysidia (talk)
Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 10:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and start banning the NPOV violators - Fight fire with fire. --Agamemnon2 11:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and report the problem with the NPOV editors. Having a group of editors steer an article is not a reason for deletion, otherwise we'd have to start deleting articles on nearly every prominent politician. This is a case for you checking Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, not for AFD. Grutness...wha? 12:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NPOV isn't a vild reason for deletion. ^KILO-_LIMA 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and ban users who do not allow others to edit the article. Captain Jackson 23:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for preference, as there is actually not that much coverage in (e.g.) Google News; if kept, NPOV the hell out of it, maintain semi-protection or protection as needed, and as others say block the POV pushers. WP:ISNOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 12:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't delete an article because of an edit war. Get some cleanup tags in place. --StuffOfInterest 14:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep with a severe warning to the POV pushers. This doesn't really belong on AFD, it should be on RFC, RFM, or RFAr. Stifle 00:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The POV issues must be resolved, and the POV fork should be deleted. KrazyCaley 04:21, 22 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.