Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as 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 no consensus. Opinions are equally divided, and whether a topic has been the subject of sufficient reliable sources to merit an article is a matter of editorial judgment that I as closer can't decide by fiat.  Sandstein  19:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:DIRECTORY. Too many primary sources. If this was an article discussing why each group was listed, then perhaps it would be useful. But as it is, it's just a directory that promotes the views of a single organization. That's not Wikipedia's job. I would be fine adding an external link to the main SPLC article. Instaurare (talk) 01:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The groups on the SPLC's list are often brought up by a variety of sources for varying reasons. Wikipedia is hardly limited in terms of space. I don't see the list as promoting the SPLC's views as unquestionable fact; there is even a bit about criticism of the SPLC's classifications in the lead section. The list doesn't say "these groups are racist / hate-driven;" it says the groups are classified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups, which is a fact. This all isn't to say more information about the list "itself" rather than just the items on it couldn't be included, but I do not think deletion is the most desirable course of action. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * When it is useful to link to the SPLC list in editing an article, I link directly to the SPLC list, on their website. I don't see a funcitonal need ot keep the list here, in fact, the reverse is true.  stable links exist at SPLC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Gabe Iglesia (talk) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Clearly meets WP:LISTN because "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." See, e.g.:
 * Niraj Chokshi, "The year of 'enormous rage': Number of hate groups rose by 14 percent in 2015" (Washington Post, 2016)
 * Kim Severson, "Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says" (New York Times, 2012)
 * Mike McPhate, "Law Center Finds Surge in Extremist Groups in U.S. Last Year" (New York Times, 2016).
 * Phillip Lucas, Critics: SPLC targets, demonizes conservative groups (Associated Press, 2016): ("Many consider The Southern Poverty Law Center's annual list of U.S. extremist groups an authoritative glimpse into racist and anti-government activity")
 * Carol M. Swain, The New White Nationalism in America: Its Challenge to Integration (Cambridge University Press, 2002), pp. 75-78 (extensively discussing SPLC's list).
 * --Neutralitytalk 02:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm courtesy-tagging the following substantial article contributors over the last 3-4 years:, , , . Neutralitytalk 20:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:SOAPBOX and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The SPLC's perpetually changing hate group list is adequately covered in the main SPLC article. As Instaurare suggests, an external link from the main article is plenty good enough. Motsebboh (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Perpetually changing" is not true. The SPLC list is updated once a year -- other articles on current subjects change on a daily or weekly basis but are not deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point about its perpetually changing nature - there are already separate listings for 2014 and 2015. Is it going to be updated every year with every change and nuance? Further evidence that it is unencyclopedic. Instaurare (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC) Instaurare (talk) 06:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Should we remove older listings for 2014? Are these groups no longer extant (most likely), or are they no longer hate groups (which seems unlikely)? It seems like there could be potential liability for listing a group as a "hate group" if SPLC has removed it from its official list. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, specifically section 7 ("Simple listings without context information....") The list breaks things down roughly into groups but otherwise it's just a list, and most of the groups are non-notable themselves. I was going to suggest having a list of only notable groups but fear that might encourage groups to become notable, which (in my nomination for understatement of the year) would be bad. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:50, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Your statement "The list breaks things down roughly into groups but otherwise it's just a list" appears to be inaccurate. As I stated below (where you very briefly responded to without addressing this issue), "The list has a three paragraph lede and 19 paragraphs of explanation, with numerous links beyond the links that are part of the organizations listed. It also has seven info boxes reflecting the changes in the list over time."  Doesn't this extensive documentation clearly demonstrate that the list is more than, as you claim, "simple listings without context information." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is inaccurate. There are paragraph headings but they are effectively the ledes of existing articles on those hate groups - be it the Klan, neo-Nazis, whatever. We have that content already. Even the lede for the article is effective the same content as the existing SPLC article on the list. (That may play more towards the "we have this information already, WP is not a mirror" argument.) Perhaps this is more like cross-categorization (which is covered by point 6 of WP:NOTDIRECTORY). I fail to see what we are adding here beyond convenience. To draw an example I used earlier, FIRE has a list of colleges and universities by ranking of their free speech codes on their website. It is much harder to navigate than even the SPLC website, you have to enter the school name or search state-by-state. It would be much easier for people to navigate if we kept a mirror, and nearly all colleges/universities would be notable (unlike this page which is full of red links.) I support FIRE. I would still nominate an article mirroring their ratings for deletion. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Misleading response (IMO). Yes, the information in the 22 paragraphs exist somewhere else on wikipedia, but not in connection with the SPLC if this list is deleted. The list contains the necessary context to understand the groups listed and I don't see any requirement that the context provided must not appear anywhere else on wikipedia.  As far as your failure to see "what we are adding here beyond convenience", what we are adding is a list that meets all wikipedia notability requirements. The "red links" argument is a red herring.  There are over 100 groups on the list that are notable enough for their own wikipedia article -- whether to eliminate these is an issue to be decided in editing the list rather than eliminating it. There is no policy or guideline that says the existence of redlines on the list requires deletion of the entire list.
 * PS Is providing reader convenience really such a bad thing?Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 04:24, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep...The SPLC is a notable organization, their rating or listing of hate groups is recognized nationally, noted by the sourced listed above by another user...AP, NY Times. ValarianB (talk) 13:20, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a notable organization which we recognize with a pretty long article which prominently mentions its hate group list; but a separate complete (year by year?) copy of that list in Wikipedia is problematic. It lends an aura of officiality and approval to one organization's opinion and an aura of shame to the listed groups. Motsebboh (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I reject the notion that a list contains any such "aura of officiality and approval." This list is descriptive &mdash; like List of designated terrorist groups, List of organisations banned by the Government of India, Outlawed terror organisations in Australia &mdash; it describes a significant set of groups compiled by a world-renowned authority, without necessarily implying that the encyclopedia agrees with any particular list. Neutralitytalk 19:48, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, those group should have a quote "aura of shame"...racist, nationalist, skinhead etc...if groups are universally shamed and reviled around the planet then the respective wiki-ages should reflect that. It doesn't violate project rules on neutrality any more than articles criticizing NAMBLA or Holocaust denial are. These groups don't get to get their extremist opinions "normalized" in our project. If there are issues with the article content then there are editorial steps that can be taken as opposed to deletion. Deletion doesn't fix article problems. ValarianB (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are illustrating my point. By parroting the SPLC's hate group list we lump together the substantial number of groups that really just offend the sensibilities of the SPLC (say David Horowitz Freedom Center or the American College of Pediatricians, for example) with the blatant skinhead and Holocaust denial haters. Motsebboh (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is in a minority if you characterize discussing SPLC's hate-monitoring as "parroting". This is the mainstream point-of-view. 9/11 truthers don't get an equal say in the 9/11 article, the Holocaust doesn't give airtime fairness to deniers, and so on. The WP:NPOV doesn't demand equal access to ALL opinions. I stand by m call to keep 100%, and will let that be that. ValarianB (talk) 17:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please try to keep this discussion policy based. We're here to debate whether we should dedicate an article to duplicating the SPLC's list, not whether that list is good or bad. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is what I am doing, pointing out that editors are misusing NPOV to attack a list that they appear to disagree with. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - essentially it is just a duplicate of SPLC's own list which is actually the first citation. But it will always tend to be a slightly out-of-date (and thus inaccurate) list lagging behind whatever the SPLC publishes. So, in my view it does not add any value as it is. However, it may well be useful to list notable organizations listed as subheading of the main Southern Poverty Law Center article. Shritwod (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: SPLC hosts an ever-changing list, we already link to that list. Wikipedia is not a content mirror. '''- Je rg li ng ''' PC Load Letter 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not true with respect to "ever-changing" -- the list only changes once a year. Other articles on current subjects require updating on a daily or weekly basis. As explained below, our list does not "mirror" the lists on the SPLC website which are very differently formatted and difficult to use. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * STRONG DELETE Delete with some regret  -- Thanks to @Instaurare. Keeping it here gives the list an imprimatur of legitimacy that it no longer deserves, in part based on its recent additions. The list still has some valuable information, and is still going to exist where anyone can find it, but the SPLC's hegemonic need to serve as an influential intelligence broker seems to (pardon the expression) trump all. As far as the following (from up this thread):"Well, those group should have a quote 'aura of shame'...racist, nationalist, skinhead etc...if groups are universally shamed and reviled around the planet then the respective wiki-ages should reflect that. It doesn't violate project rules on neutrality any more than articles criticizing NAMBLA or Holocaust denial are. These groups don't get to get their extremist opinions 'normalized' in our project."  this kind of well-intentioned but POVish and synthetic language represents a step in the direction towards the intolerance ("shaming", "calling out") that we already witness in most of today's media and educational institutions. By including Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Frank Gaffney, Daniel Pipes, and David Horowitz the SDLP has shown it has become an overly well-endowed politicized institution.  Quis separabit?  21:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty strange list, made me go to the SPLC page an take a look, Truns out thair lists have been drawing increasing criticism, for stuff like list ing Ben Carson, ("Ben Carson placed on Southern Poverty Law Center’s ‘Extremist Watch List’") E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- too many red links, too hard to maintain, and begs the question: why some groups go on and off the list year by year? If SPLC had a "top 10 list" or similar, that one would be worth maintaining. But for an extensive list such as this, providing a link from the main SPLC is sufficient. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Although this list is published by a highly regarded organization, widely referenced, and extremely well-regarded by journalists, academics and authorities, this is, ultimately, a subjective list published by a private organization.   Discussion of this list on the SPLC page (where a subhead already exists) is entirely appropriate.  Replication of this list on WP is not.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:SOAP and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER and becomes outdated and subjectively changes year by year, as stated above. Kierzek (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The SPLC updates its list once a year -- other articles on current subjects change on a daily or weekly basis but are not deleted. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Easily meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG as demonstrated by the sources listed by Neutrality, and just about every major news organization in the United States. The article has been viewed by more than 375 people per day over the past year which suggests that it's a subject of interest to readers. The SPLC is a highly-cited, well-respected source that tracks hate groups, and has worked to expose them for decades. WP:NOTDIRECTORY is inapplicable because this list article is unlike any of the seven examples listed. This article has context, is organized into categories, is well-sourced, and contains numerous links to articles about other notable subjects. Complaints about the quality of the article or the need to keep it updated do not hold sway in a deletion discussion. All that matters is notability, and suitability for inclusion in this encyclopedia, both of which are strongly evident.- MrX 04:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Question Do we have articles similar to this on Wikipedia? Articles, that is, that simply each lists put out by advocacy groups?  It's in Category:Lists of organizations based in the United States, but the other pages in that category are straight forward stuff like List of state ornithological organizations in the United States.   There are only a few that seem odd.  Such as List of front groups (which I just PRODded).E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure that matters, per "does other stuff exist?" standards. What organizations and people the SPLC categorize as hate/extremist it in itself a significant and noteworthy thing as shown by the sources presented. It seems like a lot of the calls to delete are doing so on thin grounds (soapboxing?) and downright inadmissible reasons ("it will be out of date or hard to maintain). I just don't think Afd is where one goes when there are problems with an article than can be solved by editing the article. ValarianB (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there are quite a few advocacy organizations with such lists. I think that theCatholic League used to issue such lists; here is an article about Mormon Voices issuing a Top Ten list of anti-Mormon statements.  The best known, old-line, organization lists of racists/racism is the Anti-Defamation League.  It has been issuing such lists for decades, they widely cited by scholars of bigotry and I would hazard a guess that they were an inspiration to the SPLC when it began to create such lists.   See as an  example Bigots Who Rock: an ADL List of Hate Music Groups, . which breaks the list down by country and into alphabetic lists.  But see also  Here:, an article attacking Campus Pride for it's list of "absolute worst" colleges for LGBT students.    Obviously Campus Pride is not an organization with the stature of the ADL or the SPLC.  Each, however, is an advocacy group.  I believe that keeping this would make it difficult to refuse to mirror many similar lists with WP articles.   The policy that this would violate is WP:NOTMIRROR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Some other examples I can think of: Foundation for Individual Rights in Education has a list of schools that they rate by their evaluation of their free-speech policies; various chapters of the ACLU can have banned books reports like ; I'm certain there are many. But WP:OSE doesn't imply anything about whether those lists should inherently get pages on Wikipedia, regardless of the outcome of the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTMIRROR adresses the question of why not include such lists. This list and similar can - and often should - be linked from WP articles, simply be linked from WP, not MIRRORed here.  Echoing a list created by an advocacy group is not encyclopedic, as per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could we have an article on the list without the list? That is, a page about the presence of the list (which does seem to pass notability guidelines) but without the list contents itself? Any non-WP:OR criticisms would belong on that page as well. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There is already a section on the SPLC page. If you suspect that an independent  page is warranted, a good way to go about it is to have a careful look at the existing subhead, improve it (just about every subhead in the project could use a little improvement,) and then see if you still feel that a separate article is desirable.  Do understand, that any page split from the page of   a group that takes the sort controversial positions that SPLC has done in recent years is liable to needing constant monitoring.  SPLC has monitoring, to keep that sort of thing under control.  You might want to consult the regular editors there before creating a new page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * In that case, it seems that we can and have covered the notability of the list without having the issues of a directory per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, we could have a separate article on the list without completely replicating the list, but why not just slightly expand the section on "Tracking hate groups" in the main SPLC article? As for MrX's point about about the list article drawing lost of viewers, so do the remains of train wrecks. Practically speaking, the SPLC is a partisan interest group. We can and should point readers to the hate group it keeps in its own website. We should not be keeping a duplicate list here. Motsebboh (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The claim by the originator that the list fails WP:LISTN is not accurate. As the linked section clearly says "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. ... One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." As others have stated, the SPLC list receives wide coverage throughout the country, both when the list is annually updated and throughout the year when groups on the list warrant media attention. Although it is not a requirement, as one respondent suggests, that all groups on the list be notable, in fact over one hundred of the groups on the list are notable enough for their own articles.


 * The originator also claims that the list violates WP:DIRECTORY but fails to demonstrate how. The link includes seven possible criteria, but none appear to apply.  One editor cites #7 which is "Simple listings without context information."  In fact, context information is provided.  The list has a three paragraph lede and 19 paragraphs of explanation, with numerous links beyond the links that are part of the organizations listed.  It also has seven info boxes reflecting the changes in the list over time. Whether the list should be limited to notable groups as at least two of the "delete respondents" suggest (or to only the current list rather than two) is certainly worth discussing but should not be part of a deletion discussion.


 * The subject of the SPLC is obviously controversial. "Delete respondents" have brought forth arguments that relate to the controversy but are irrelevant to a deletion debate.  At least two "delete respondents" talk about the list granting the SPLC list "legitimacy". Whether wikipedia has this ability to confer legitimacy is debatable, but this legitimacy debate does not reflect on the notabilty of the SPLC list which should be a (the?) major focus of this current debate.  Several other "deleters" argue that the list is just SPLC opinion (i.e."a subjective list", references to soapbox). As stated above, if these opinions are notable (and the media coverage they generate indicates they are) then they meet wikipedia criteria for inclusion.


 * Several "delete respondents" claim that this list is readily available online through the SPLC website. This might be relevant to discussions to cut down the list to the hundred or so notable groups. However the fact is, as stated by a "keep respondent", that our list does get numerous daily hits.  Our list is also substantially different from, and more useful to the wikipedia reader, than the SPLC list. Please note:


 * (1) Our list provides direct links to the notable groups listed. Should we really require a wikipedia reader to first leave wikipedia to find a list and then come back to wikipedia in order to type in the names of the groups they may be interested in (which may or may not have a separate article on wikipedia)?


 * (2) Our list is conducive to browsing. It is easier to view the list as a whole on our list rather than the two SPLC linked lists. The interactive hate map link  requires a reader to search by state and categories -- there is no single screen that would show, for example, all anti-LGBT groups in the U.S. The other non-interactive SPLC list  requires repeated scrolling to view the entire list. Our list requires much less scrolling and allows an entire category to appear on one screen (at least on a laptop) whereas the SPLC list allows the viewer to see only a couple of groups within a category at one time.


 * Finally, several "delete respondents" claim that the material is adequately, or can be adequately, discussed in the main article. This is simply not true. Only a few alleged hate groups are currently listed in the article. The fourteen categories of hate groups are not identified. The narratives describing the categories are obviously not included.  That's a lot of notable information that needs to be added back to the article. This suggests to me that a Merge proposal would have made more sense than this deletion discussion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 17:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Nobody is talking about removing mention of the list's existence from Wikipedia; it will certainly be mentioned at the main SPLC article. This is about whether we should keep the contents of the list on Wikipedia. The list itself can have different notability than what exactly is in the list from year to year. I think that's a key point that is sometimes being lost. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that my comments, or indeed anyone's comments above, were suggesting that the existence of the list would somehow be eliminated from the main article. My point is that the list provides much relevant and notable information for the reader in an easily accessible format. We're not doing our job if we say, in effect, that the SPLC has this very notable and widely reported list, but we're not going to tell you what's actually on the list.  The contents of the list are also notable. Indeed, for the purpose of NPOV, it is wrong for the main article to document criticism of a few inclusions on the list while keeping secret the full range of categories and groups that comprise the list. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not exactly a secret list, it it? It is published on the SPLC website which presumably will be cited in the main article. Some editorial judgement is needed to illustrate the contents of the list, but as been mentioned several times Wikipedia is not a mirror Shritwod (talk) 10:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As for your mirror link, it says "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." The list we provided is none of these things nor does it resemble any of the four specific examples listed at the link. As I said above (have you looked at the two lists from the SPLC website?) our format is significantly different from the SPLC links and significantly more convenient for readers.  This list didn't just suddenly appear -- "editorial judgement" was exercised in creating the list and editing the main article appropriately.  The issue here is whether the list itself, and not just the fact that such a list was created, is notable.  You "deleters" fail to acknowledge the significance of the following (which I and others have referred to correctly) from our guideline on Notability at WP:LISTN (bold face added):


 * "Notability guidelines apply to the inclusion of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.


 * Editors have, at their discretion, exercised their judgement and determined a more complete list is better than merely "illustrating" examples. Using such discretion on a clearly notable topic is certainly subject to debate on the article's discussion page, but is not a reason for deleting it in full.  Our list easily meets these requirements and should stay. If you want it to go, you should be able to explain why the list, referred to regularly in media across the country, is not notable.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Of course the list is notable, but we don't have to replicate every notable piece of information on the internet. I will acknowledge that as presented by the SPLC it isn't actually all that easy to use, but I don't think a page of redlinks is particularly easy either. And even though it is notable, I don't think it is independently notable of the SPLC. And then there's the issue of keeping the list up-to-date which I think is virtually impossible, so it will always have a tendency to be a slightly out-of-date version of the actual list, which doesn't seem to add value. Shritwod (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * The issue with notability isn't whether we have a mission to "replicate every notable piece of information on the internet" -- although I can't see why we shouldn't do that. Our notability policy only says that we should exclude articles on non-notable subjects. I'm not sure how redlinks create any difficulty, but this is an issue on the contents of the list rather than its existence.  You overstate the difficulty of keeping the list up to date.  The SPLC updates its list only once a year -- it is rare that it would be added to during the year.  It's still work but then any article on current events requires regular updating. Again this is not justification for deletion -- I am not aware of any policy that wikipedia should not have articles that require periodic (in this case annually in February) updating. Your observation that the list might not be notable but for the notability of the SPLC seems to be irrelevant.  The SPLC does exist and has created a notable list.  Articles on notable subjects often result in spinoffs of other notable articles. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Arguments that:"(1) Our list provides direct links to the notable groups listed. Should we really require a wikipedia reader to first leave wikipedia to find a list and then come back to wikipedia in order to type in the names of the groups they may be interested in (which may or may not have a separate article on wikipedia)?" and"(2) Our list is conducive to browsing. It is easier to view the list as a whole on our list rather than the two SPLC linked lists. The interactive hate map link ([6]) requires a reader to search by state and categories -- there is no single screen that would show, for example, all anti-LGBT groups in the U.S. The other non-interactive SPLC list ([7]) requires repeated scrolling to view the entire list. Our list requires much less scrolling and allows an entire category to appear on one screen (at least on a laptop) whereas the SPLC list allows the viewer to see only a couple of groups within a category at one time." are both utterly irrelevant; easier browsing does not add or enhance notability. Quis separabit? 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * You're right, but, unlike most of you "deleters", I've addressed notability elsewhere, haven't I? And neither you nor the two others that have responded to me have even attempted to rebut me, have they? The quotes you cherry picked address the claims made by at least three of you folks that our list merely replicates lists available at the SPLC website.  These claims, as I've shown by highlighting the major differences between the links, are clearly false. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Please remember to assume good faith. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:36, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I made a perfectly correct assumption. I addressed notability and got a response that claimed I didn't. Rather than quoting the section of my comments that addressed notability, he/she quoted a section that was obviously not intended to address notability. What is the correct assumption to make, other than cherry picking, when three of my paragraphs in three different entries that directly address notability are ignored? You also responded earlier to my post emphasizing notability without addressing the notability issue.  I repeated my argument above at your original comments on this proposal and, assuming good faith on your part, look forward to a clear explanation on our different interpretations. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 03:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Instaurare (talk) 23:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As the originator of this discussion, you also have failed to address notability. You pointed to WP:LISTN but offered no explanation.  I quoted from the section, as did at least one other "keeper". and explained why it supports notability.  You have failed to rebut these arguments or made your own argument explaing why the list fails that section as you claim.  As WP:AFDFORMAT makes clear, "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep LISTN: "[A] list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Sources cited by Neutrality satisfy me that the group has been discussed as a group by independent reliable sources. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Obviously passes WP:LISTN. Tons of reliable sources talk about this list, including many who take issue with it. It's controversial. We cover controversial subjects. This list is the subject. We don't decide not to include a list just because it's controversial. Nor does it make us a soapbox, which implies a problem of WP:NPOV. Editor bias doesn't come into it. All that matters is that reliable sources independent of the subject sufficiently cover it to establish notability, and that there exist a clear inclusion criteria. We have both of those down. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 15:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment about maintainability and inclusion criteria - (pinging -- not to single you out, your comment is just the one I was looking at) - As others have pointed it, the list indeed changes... but it changes once a year. Unless it's changed since the last time I edited it, it includes only those listed on the annual Intelligence Report. Sure, the SPLC talks about all sorts of other organizations through its blog, but that's not what we're talking about here. It's not a hard list to update, and the fact that it is presently up to date (though, again, it's been a while since I've looked closely) would seem to speak to that. Inclusion criteria can be worked out on the page itself. Including the full list of 2015 and 2014, for example, seems silly, and perhaps contributes to the perception of it including too much, but that's an editing issue not a deletion issue. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 15:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I think at issue here is whether a list "designated by X as Y" belongs in the encyclopedia, under WP:DUE etc. The list concept as a whole is notable; i.e. the fact that SPLC issues such as list is covered by sources, but does this mean that the full list needs to be replicated here, instead of being linked to from external links? My view is that it does not. It would be interesting to see how this AfD closes. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you've put your finger on just the pivotal issue (I'd expect no less! :) ) But I think the question cuts in the opposite direction, at least for the matter before AfD (i.e. can the list have a standalone page--rather than, how exhaustive should the list there be?) We have an enormous number of pages listing "designated by X as Y"--what comes to mind first are the very many magazine annual lists that we tally. Here's a whole category devoted solely to listing the Forbes lists that have pages! In many cases, editorial cuts are made within the entry--for instance, only including the top 10, or only including wiki-notable organizations--but I think the idea of having such a list as a standalone entry pretty clearly satisfies the current criteria, namely significant coverage of the grouping by reliable sources. So not keeping the page when it meets our criteria feels like treading on thin NPOV ice for me. Innisfree987 (talk) 06:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well.. the list is mentioned in the main SPLC article which gives an opportunity to explain what groups are in it (briefly) and give some illustrations. Of course, it is perfectly possible that it would require a page of its own to explore the issue, but that's far more than just a simple list (with all those redlinks). So, I still think that as it stands it should be deleted, but there is certainly scope for an article about the SPLC-listed "hate groups" by itself. Shritwod (talk) 09:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's just that the list notability criteria very specifically say that the red links are ok, and the only notability question for a standalone list page is secondary source coverage of the group; it specifies that removing red links is an editorial decision, not a disqualification of notability for standalone page. So I don't see the policy basis for deleting this, and I worry about violating neutrality if we depart from policy without reason. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * KeepThis is important data and can tell us a lot about changes in our culture over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trillium168 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, but maybe could add a section for comment response reply from organizations and sociology experts as to appropriateness of groups on the list, what the groups themselves think about being listed, etc. Sagecandor (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * No, this is a list for who the SPLC considers to be hate groups; the hate group's response is not notable or germane to the topic. ValarianB (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, that could be up for more discussion. But also could include responses from third parties, like academic professors. Sagecandor (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is the gold standard for such lists. Bearian (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that 1. SPLC is an advocacy organization; 2. that the ADL list can equally be described as "the gold standard" with equal validity; 3. that there has been substantive criticism of SPLC for including Christian individuals (Ben Carson) and organizations (Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute) with whom it disagrees on the question of gay marriage on in it's "Extremist files" ; 4.) that the SPLC list is hard to maintain because it changes often; and 5.) WP:NOTMIRROR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why users keep mentioning that the SPLC is an advocacy organization as if that matters. What does matter is they are widely-cited and consulted by the FBI. Criticism from a listed hate group and Ben Carson who compared homosexuality to pedophilia and bestiality, have nothing whatsoever to do with the notability of this list. I haven't seen any evidence that the list changes often (see WP:DNC). WP:NOTMIRROR is inapplicable. A mirror is website that is the replication of another website. This article is a summary of portions of the SPLC's website, with content from other sources, linking to article of interest about other notable subjects.- MrX 13:08, 29 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Move to List of hate groups – per the subdiscussion following from 's above question, there are enough organizations devoted to identifying and monitoring hate groups that it should be possible to create an aggregate list that's not based entirely on the work of one NGO. It's just a matter of coming to consensus on which sources should be consulted. This will eliminate any remaining concerns about the page being a content mirror. Ibadibam (talk) 03:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ibadibam's suggestion to Redirect to List of hate groups is interesting, although it would be difficult to maintain; and difficult to decide who gets to define "hate". "200 ‘openly bigoted’ anti-Christian groups tagged as intolerant,", It links to a "bigotry map" and includes the SPLC on its list while the SPLC designatesCatholic Family and Human Rights Institute, Family Research Council, and American Family Association.  I continue to be convinced that our best course is to delete and simply link to the SPLC list.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "Hate group" is a messy term, and such a broad list would bring with it the problematic task of setting new inclusion criteria based on definitions that vary (up to and including the problem of what to do with a sort of "I know you are but what am I?" list that might get some coverage for different reasons). This list is workable because it goes by a specific definition and list, which is highly cited in mainstream and academic publications. Ultimately, for the purposes of this AfD, a lot of people have opined before this suggestion was made, and thus it's something best raised on the talk page post-AfD. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:39, 29 November 2016 (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.