Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Identity Extremism


 * 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. Trending keep, but clearly no consensus to delete.  Sandstein  07:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Black Identity Extremism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I will copy and paste here what I've written on the article's talk page with some editions. No credibility whatsoever, and certainly not significant or notable to warrant a standalone article. Just because the FBI concocted the term which is a hoax by itself does not necessarily mean it warrants inclusion. There is no such thing as "Black Identity Extremism." The US calling its Black citizens "Black Identity Extremists" who are actually "Black activists" fighting against injustice, their brutal killings by the the police, violence against them, racism and the like does not make them "Black Identity Extremists." If they are Black Identity Extremists where are the White Identity Extremists who are doing the killings, the brutalisation and racism with the institutions in place to enforce the subjugation and disenfranchisement of its Black citizens? If the Blacks fighting for their right to life, and to live dignified lives are deemed "Black Identity Extremists", what do you call organisations like the KKK who have been killing/lynching Black Americans in the most brutal fashion for decades and still continue their fascist ideology against Black Americans? This foolishness must stop. Is Wikipedia a tool for propaganda or a true encyclopedia? Wikipedia is not here for propaganda as far as I'm aware. Maybe in the future when there are real "Black Identity Extremists/Extremism" and covered in detail by reliable third party sources, perhaps then we can create an article called "Black Identity Extremism." For now, it is mainly a political agenda driven by those who are trying to turn the issue around rather than addressing the injustice, racism and brutal killings of a particular ethic group within the United States who historically have been the most disenfranchised in the US and still continue to be disenfranchised and discriminated against. Black Americans are an ethnic minority, and this targeting is foolish and not befitting an encyclopedia. Also, there are Black people all around the world. Are they also "Black Identity Extremist" too? This foolishness and systematic bias must stop! This article is utter nonsense and should be deleted. Further, without biting, and in good faith if I may add, I think it is quite unusual that the initiator of this article only registered quite recently yet the first and only article they've initiated/created is this controversial article which only started towards the end of last year thanks to the FBI. Generally, new editors start by editing articles and even if they go on to create new articles, they mainly create non controversial articles e.g. sports, bios, culture, religion, political figures etc. Their first article generally are not controversial topics especially new controversial subjects. Phew! One has to be pretty brave. I can't also help but notice that they have not contributed to Wiki anymore once this article went up. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2018 April 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 23:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 23:44, 21 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete The phrase is not sufficiently notable for its own article, and the fact that the Trump-Sessions Justice Department summoned this spectre into existence doesn't mean it exists. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 00:10, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The case for deletion needs to be based on Wikipedia policies which the article contravenes, and I am not seeing that here. Reliable sources exist. The article is on a notable subject, based on the amount of media coverage that exists. Is it a hoax? Well, a copy of the FBI report is available online - I am not qualified to say whether it was generated by the FBI or not. To me, it sounds like a case of "I don't like it" or WP:HARMFUL, neither of which are valid arguments. Wikipedia isn't into censorship. Whether or not the person who created the draft (which I reviewed and accepted into mainspace) is an SPA is neither here nor there; we should assume good faith and treat the article on its merits. If the real issue is one of neutrality then we should edit the article to make it more neutral, not delete it. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Curb Safe Charmer, are you arguing that the neologism "black identity extremists" is notable or that the philosophy of "black identity extremism" is notable? I don't think either is. Can you explain why it is? Can you explain which one this article is about? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 07:36, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * neither of those things, per se. What is notable is that the FBI's counterterrorism division wrote a report about it, the cultural significance of their assertion that it is a thing, and that there has been a significant backlash as a result. However I do believe the article also passes the WP:NEO test: there are plenty articles about the term, rather than just using the term. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If neither, then what is the point of this article? Just because the FBI says so under a blatantly racist president who regarded white supremacists as "fine people" as per his Charlottesville rhetoric does not make it notable or warrant a wiki article. Even the sources cited debunked the tern and can see it for the foolishness it is,  "[...] and some expressed concern that the term is part of a politically motivated effort to find an equivalent threat to white supremacists." The sources cited are merely regurgitating the term the FBI cooked up in the kitchen (in quotation marks) before demolishing it. The sources cited regard this nonsense as a civil rights (Black American civil rights) issue as I have stated above, not Black Identity Extremists. No one, including the FBI has been able to tell us what, who, how and where we can find these Black Identity Extremists, because it is cooked up during a time of racial tension in United States thanks to the US president fanning the flames. No one, not even the sources cited have been able to provide us who these Black Identity Extremists are. It does not exist. It is a hoax fabricated by the FBI - hoping the term gain widespread usage as this source (Foreign Policy, who leaked the report back in October 2017) clearly states: "The concept of “black identity extremists” appears to be entirely new. FP found only five references to the term in a Google search; all were to law enforcement documents about domestic terrorism from the last two months. One of those online references is to law enforcement training on identifying “domestic terror groups and criminally subversive subcultures which are encountered by law enforcement professionals on a daily basis.”". Wikipedia is not a dictionary  neither is it a tool to advance propaganda. I don't know of any  Black Identity Extremists or organisations, perhaps someone can point me in the right direction and I'm not talking about Black civil right activists or organisation who are fighting against racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and the brutal killings of Black Americans by US law enforcement, I mean the real “black identity extremists” or movements. It does not exist. It is hoax fabricated by the FBI hoping the term will gain popular usage. Now, if you ask me who the White Identity Extremists are I can give you several examples starting with the KKK. They have set up organisations and advanced the ideology that Whites are superior to Black Americans (or any Black person for that matter). They have killed/lynched, maimed, kidnapped and wrecked Black American families for decades, yet I do not see the FBI or US president labeling them as White Identity Extremists  or domestic terrorists (Which they are). To the contrary, the US president regard them as fine people. In the future when there are real “black identity extremists”, then we can create such an article. Wikipedia is going nowhere.Senegambianamestudy (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * *Keep As stated above, you appear to only be making this argument because "I don't like it". The value of this article does not have to require that the terms within are universally agreed upon, so long as it can be agreed that the mentioning of these terms in the way that they have been mentioned is sufficiently notable in and of itself, of which it appears to be. This article deserves to exist because the concept of this sort of extremes that gained enough traction that the FBI thought it was worthwhile to create the content they have decided to create. As with any ideological argument, there is a degree of ambiguity as to where boundaries are, and as such, this article does not qualify in any way as propaganda. It is important to discuss this calmly and rationally, and from my perspective it appears to be that this article does not need to be deleted. SuperChris (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge. This article is a stub and fails WP:SUSTAINED. I suggest merging the news of the way a nonexistent category was briefly brought to life through an FBI report by including a few lines in the article on the FBI. Shameran81 (talk) 05:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think it fails WP:SUSTAINED. It was being talked about at the Congressional Black Caucus briefing on 20 March 2018  with coverage from mainstream media . See also WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE which asks has there been "further analysis or discussion" some time after the event. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep subject has received very substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Renaming to FBI report on Black Identity Extremism rather than the neologism itself is worth considering. FloridaArmy (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Earlier today, I moved the article to Black Identity Extremists, because none of the sources, including the FBI report, used the phrase "extremism". Perhaps a better name would be Trump Justice Department assertion, despite the complete lack of evidence, of the existence of Black Identity Extremists. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:43, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Despite multiple problems surrounding the article, I believe that the discussion above has made it very clear that the article does meet the guidelines for notability, and that there has been sustained coverage behind the use of the term. Acebulf (talk) 06:13, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep While there is certainly NPOV concerns and certainly issues with the actual concept, neither of those are cause for deletion. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to FBI report on Black Identity Extremists. It is true that there has been significant coverage on this topic. However, the subject isn't really Black Identity Extremism itsself but the FBI report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitigresito (talk • contribs) 17:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.