Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups


 * 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   keep. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 04:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-gay hate groups

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This is a clear fork of List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups - possibly a POV fork. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - I'm not sure why this was nominated, but it seems like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Forks are perfectly acceptable and from the guideline, "...as an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." This subject merits a separate article because of the immensity of content that would not be able to be covered in the main article. – MrX 02:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. This is not a WP:Content forking issue, Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject. This is a WP:Spinout article and the information would easily be too cumbersome for the main list article which lists dozens and dozens of groups under many categories. Unfortunately this seems like another front on the concerted battle by a handful of editors to suppress how many Christian and groups considered "right-wing" are also hate groups and their actions have led to violence against LGBT people and even deaths from suicide due to bullying. This also will help keep a handful of the entries from needing a standalone article of their own if the only thing notable about them is that they are designated as hate groups. Every delete and suppress discussion so far has generally upheld that the hate group designation is notable criticisms of the group yet nom and a few others exacerbate the situation so RFCs are being held on no less than 6 articles. Sorry, these groups are considered hate groups and now the world will be able to see that for themselves. Insomesia (talk) 02:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no POV fork involved here. This article provides greater details on one segment of the overall topic of hate groups and is consistent with Summary style.  The parent article is already at 84,000 bytes. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 02:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ambivalent It seems to me that the motivation behind splitting these out separately is likely to be at least in part because a lot of editors see this designation as illegitimate and politically motivated. It isn't as though we haven't seen battle over that point for quite some time now. On the other hand the controversy is in the real world as well, so perhaps the split-out is legitimate. I would like to remind User:Insomesia, in any case, that our job here is not to publicize the SPLC's listings. Mangoe (talk) 03:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not working or interested in promoting SPLC, however, they do seem to be the leading authority on the issue and contentious editing to prevent the hate group designation has upheld their analysis. Insomesia (talk) 04:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This article offers an expanded summary of these organizations individually that is not offered by the parent article List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, which possesses a style that is concise and consistent in that doesn't offer information on the individual organizations in favor of merely describing each class of organization listed. Keeping this article seems like a reasonable way to keep the parent article of a readable size while setting a stylistic precedent for further child lists spinning off of the List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups by subclassification. Other child pages do not yet exist, but deleting this one sets a poor precedent for the future survival of others which like this would contribute to the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia. WP:SS seems to justify the spinout of this list and WP:Deadline should be considered if the argument is going to be made that other child lists aren't yet on Wikipedia. Mr Wave (Talk - Contribs) 04:49, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, with potential for a future merge to the main list (if the rest of the main list could be done in similar style). My perspective: I've been working for ages (because I have work/life and the list keeps updating) on a revision to the main list that includes ADL's listings as well and both groups' rationale for listing, but I can see that other background - basically, a summary of the articles in question - could be useful. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 05:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roscelese. Pass a Method   talk  06:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Roscelese. I&#39;m StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: As been said, our job here is not to publicize the SPLC's listings. Wikipedia is not the press department of the SPLC. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, educational, encyclopedic, and good deal of secondary source coverage out there. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Read WP:Summary style. It's not a POV fork, nor a redundant content fork. If all useful, pertinent content were added to the main article on all of these topics, that article would quickly become so huge as to be unreadable. The content is pertinent, notable, useful, encyclopedic and interesting. No legitimate rationale for deletion has been provided, and the stuff about "publicizing the SPLC listings" isn't supportive of deletion as it doesn't explain why this topic fails notability or verifiability or NPOV. - Balph Eubank ✉ 14:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - This subsection of the massive SPLC list of hate groups is the subject of substantial political debate, therefore worthy of inclusion in its own terms. Carrite (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Notwithstanding the one "delete" !vote, I am happy to withdraw my nomination for a snow keep. StAnselm (talk) 03:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Mr wave Pass a Method   talk  00:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect and selectively merge to the list of organisations that they call hate groups. This is not a list: a list is something that you'll find at the parent article, where you get an entry and a few details.  A list is not a series of paragraphs on each entry; such a format would deserve to be moved or merged somewhere else, but there's no other place where this specific content would go, unless you're going to split up the page by merging each little bit into the organisation's article.  Meanwhile, the idea of having such a list is rather excessively specific; a single law firm's list of hate groups on a single subject is not what encyclopedias cover.  Given unlimited resources, would Britannica ever have this article?  Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They'd have a better article covering the topic from a historical perspective that would have this list as a part of the overall coverage. However we can be satisfied with our work in process, a sub article of a list article, which itself is a sub article of Southern Poverty Law Center. Insomesia (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Carrite and others, useful article!Cluetrainwoowoo (talk) 09:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge back into List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups. Unneeded fork of the previous list. Everything that is new to this article can be put back into the previous article. Binksternet (talk) 15:25, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No actually, all of it is new after the introduction. The main article, a list of several hundred groups out of an estimate 1000 or so, listed only the groups' names. We offer a summary of each group and why they were added to the list. This is not a WP:Content forking issue. Insomesia (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I see all the new work. I don't think it is a bad POV fork, just an unnecessary fork. What if that new work was merged into the main hate list article? Wouldn't that be good for the main article? I think so. Binksternet (talk) 02:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a content fork in Wikipedia terms - Articles should not be split into multiple articles just so each can advocate a different stance on the subject, this is clearly not that. And no, wedging in all this information would likely be WP:Undue to an already large article that has many sub-categories of hate groups like these anti-gay ones. We have a lot more information here than we would likely ever want in the parent article. Instead this is the first break-out article from the main one and others may follow. Insomesia (talk) 10:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge back. Most of the content appears to be definitions or otherwise not new; I don't see why what appears to be a few back and forth comments warrants in-depth coverage. OSborn arfcontribs. 01:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can only report what reliable sources state. If a group's designation as a hate group has been contested by reliable sources we should cover that with due weight. Insomesia (talk) 02:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep—seems to meet WP:LISTN without any problems. Mark Arsten (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:LISTN. SalHamton (talk) 18:21, 16 September 2012 (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.