I am sort of torn on this. By the letter of the [close reason] I guess the question should be closed, especially given the situation in the comments below Asaf's answer. But we are also not bound to always follow the rules precisely and exactly at every turn.
I do believe that Kasper asked the question in good faith, and was not looking to simply have a soapbox from which to promote his views (and even admits to being agnostic about the issues in the question itself). I feel that if this question, which at its heart appears more philosophical than most questions currently tagged philosophy, is closed, then it's almost saying that any philosophical question which does not strictly adhere to the majority opinion of mathematical philosophy would suffer the same fate.
But I also feel that the origin of the question greatly influenced its closure. I doubt, for example, that a question about the merits of the intuitionistic standpoint of mathematics, using Heyting's Intuitionism: An Introduction as a reference, would have received the same treatment.
Perhaps a quite severe edit to the question (or an entirely new question!) can be made along the following lines to make it more acceptable:
- Crop out virtually all of the quote from Wildberger's article. The first paragraph, with perhaps scattered quotes, would be sufficient to explain his standpoint. (Of course, retain a link to the article in question, and mention that some answers might be direct responses to the article in question.)
- Ask the question in the title: "Does mathematics require axioms?" But be somewhat more exact. Wildberger seems to see, for example, the axioms of group theory as definitional in nature, and doesn't appear to have problems with these. He seems to be against what one may term foundational axioms for the whole of mathematics (and certainly against the use of the axioms of ZFC in this foundational role).
- Offer Wildberger as an example of someone that does not see the need for these sorts of axioms, and mention that his is (appear to be) a minority opinion in the mathematical community. But keep the question focused on the role of axioms within mathematics, and not a response to a particular article.
These changes certainly won't please everyone, but I think they will have the effect of neutralising the question, making it less likely to solicit heated debate.