Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups (2nd nomination)


 * 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 action. I'm closing this AfD without prejudice as the filer is topic banned from LGBT-articles, broadly construed and thus the AfD itself was improperly started.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LISTN and violates WP:DIRECTORY. The main Southern Poverty Law Center already discusses the list in detail. It's not Wikipedia's job to promote the views of a single organization. And the list simply changes too much to maintain it properly on an encyclopedia. I am also nominating the following related pages because it makes even less sense to have a separate article for a sub-list:

Instaurare (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per the numerous arguments about sourcing and notability made less than 10 months ago when this article was previously nominated for deletion by the same user. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That discussion led to no consensus, and I believe it's ripe for discussion again per CNN's example: "Editor's Note: The headline on this story has been changed to more closely align with the content of the piece, which clearly indicates that the data on hate groups is from the Southern Poverty Law Center. This story has also been updated to provide direct links to the full list from the SPLC as opposed to publishing the entire list here, and context has been added regarding some groups who oppose their inclusion on the SPLC list." Instaurare (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Less than ten months ago, you nominated this article, and there was not even remotely consensus to delete it. Nothing has substantively changed. The list also does not "promote the views" of the SPLC. (That's like saying having the List of organisations banned by the Government of India endorses the Indian government's views. It's nonsense. It also ignores the fact that groups' objections to being designated as hate groups appears prominently in the list). Neutralitytalk 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Moreover, this 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) - article extensively discussing list
 * Kim Severson, "Number of U.S. Hate Groups Is Rising, Report Says" (New York Times, 2012) - article extensively discussing list
 * Mike McPhate, "Law Center Finds Surge in Extremist Groups in U.S. Last Year" (New York Times, 2016) - article extensively discussing list
 * 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).
 * Chen 2006 (SPLC and ADL are authoritative sources for identifying domestic extremists and hate groups")
 * Perry 2001 (SPLC provides "invaluable service for the public")
 * Neiwert 2013 ("the Southern Poverty Law Center ... remains the most assidous, detailed, and dependently factual of all the organizations that gather and publish information on the radical right in America")
 * Spitzer 2001 (SPLC is "a nationally respected organization devoted to tracking domestic terrorist and racist groups").
 * The bottom line is that some people don't like the SPLC. That's not a reason for deletion. Neutralitytalk 02:45, 31 August 2017 (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 02:45, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have violated your topic ban (again) by nominating List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as anti-LGBT hate groups for deletion. See you at ANI.- MrX 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Trout for the AfD proposer, as this widely discussed list topic resoundingly meets the very low notability requirement at WP:LISTN. This list article is helpful as it conveys the prominent (and manifold) reactions to the list, and the list article can document its changes over time, encyclopedic facts which would not be found at the SPLC list itself. Binksternet (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Applicability:section 3. This Does not fail WP:LISTN: 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 - This list is frequently cited and mentioned in reliable sources. It is both sufficiently notable to transfer notability to those who it lists, as well as having notability transferred to it via news and academic sources. Regarding WP:DIRECTORY --> WP:TROUT Edaham (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does the list need to be republished on Wikipedia? Instaurare (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Why does anything? Edaham (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The editors above made the case clear; however I wonder about nominator's topic ban and POV on this subject since he was also the one who nominated it last time. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 03:22, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly meets WP:GNG as outlined by others already. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just adding my voice, I think others above me have made a sufficiently clear case. TechBear  &#124; Talk &#124; Contributions 04:24, 31 August 2017 (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.