This is an important issue. We certainly do not want any Nazi (or any other) political propaganda on this cite. I did not notice the "accepted answers" we are discussing (I do not read all answers to all questions), and I would like to see them.
But I did notice several QUESTIONS
which constitute Nazi propaganda. I cannot give an example because the questions of this sort that I know have been removed, but I can explain how a question can constitute a propaganda.
A question may contain "implicit assumptions" (in fact many questions do). Examples (not from this site):
Are you still beating your wife?
Why is the Moon made of green cheese?
Such implicit assumptions may constitute propaganda. I hope everyone understands what I mean.
Now how should we fight this. First of all, by voting down. I suppose an accepted answer can be voted down. Is it reasonable to empower the administrators to remove some answers? Even those accepted? If there is a sufficient number of downvotes and tags. I think this is reasonable.
Administrators should not decide themselves what constitutes propaganda and what is not. We should be relying on votes and tags.
Now why should we single out Nazi propaganda/antisemitism? Or right-wing propaganda? I understand it is most obnoxious, because it is related to the hudge mass murder in the recent past.
But left-wing propaganda can be also obnoxious. I do not want to give examples,
(read political articles of people like Noam Chomsky yourself, if you want examples). And it can be neither left nor right. (Example: Russian state-sponsored "news" about the recent events in Ukraine which flood the media).
For these reasons I propose to introduce a reason for closing vote "political propaganda", and a corresponding tag for the answers. Questions and answers which collect certain number of these tags are closed and removed by the administrators. We can leave to the administrators to decide how many are needed in each case. This should apply even to the accepted answers.
EDIT. I react on the references in the comment of Marakai. The author of the "answer" in the first reference is the same whom I already mentioned. His two "propaganda questions" in the similar style were deleted. I already proposed to ban this user. And I repeat my proposal: after all, this is a third offence, and I hope the moderators have access to his deleted "questions". This "answer" is not accepted, and was downvoted many times. This case seems to be clear.
The case of the second reference is more complicated. Superficially it looks like a well researched answer, and has many up votes. But it actually contains a lot of incorrect statements, of course without citing any source, which are skilfully mixed with correct ones. In this case I expect some person with good knowledge of the subject to refute this answer.