Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negro Project


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 03:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Negro Project

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is an smear page insinuating that birth control advocate Margaret Sanger wanted to exterminate the Negro population, discredited information repeatedly removed from the Margaret Sanger article. See Talk:Margaret Sanger for background. Delete this POV fork as WP:CSD and create redirect to Margaret Sanger. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete If there is anything worth writing on this, the title should be something like "Negro Project conspiracy theory" or who-knows-what. This article appears to present speculation as fact, and it probably can't be appropriately cleaned up as long as the creator is disrupting the process. Politizer talk / contribs 17:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Week keep and expand Changing my vote, sinice Graymornins' edits seem to have improved it. I think this "keep" is contingent, though, on someone watching the article carefully for at least a couple days and defending it from potential attempts to change it back to an attack page.  It's also contingent on someone improving the article...right now it's not very useful, but the comment below suggests that a decent article could be written on this topic.  Politizer talk / contribs 18:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering the tendentiousness of the editors who add this information, watching for "at least a couple days" will not be sufficient. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Negro Project conspiracy theory and fix POV. (see below) This seems to be a notable conspiracy theory - Concerned Women for America have commented on it, NPR has done a story on it, as have the Washington Times, the New York Sun, and several other reliable news sources. What's wrong with this article isn't notability - it's blatant POV and disruptive editing by the article's originator, which shouldn't be a cause for deletion. It may be an attack page now, but I'm sure we can fix it.  Graymornings (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've moved the page to Negro Project conspiracy theory, removed the POV material, and added one citation. I'm currently trying to find more info - if anyone can find non-proponents of the theory that have provided commentary, that'd be helpful. Also helpful would be names of chief proponents/groups behind this theory, views of historians, and any word on Planned Parenthood's response.  Graymornings (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This may be WP:OR. None of the above-cited sources refer to this as a "conspiracy theory"&mdash;we seem to have discovered one. Can any oft-repeated smear be added to Wikipedia as long as conspiracy theory is appended to the title? If so, the gates of WP:FRINGE WP:FORK may swing open. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete The article does not appear to represent any significant research into the project. MFNickster (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This remains so even after Graymornings' revisions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We might be able to find more info on the topic, but even after researching, it's hard to find non-POV sources. I'm not sure I or anyone could make this article into more than a stub without it being POV. If (and only if) no more info is forthcoming, I support deletion but a short mention in the Margaret Sanger article. Otherwise (that is, if we can find good sources and expand), keep but monitor for POV edits.  Graymornings (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - One citation is not enough to be notable. Needs a lot more sources and documentation. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 20:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per user:Graymornings - but watch closely as candidate for relisting.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on the sources found by Graymornings. Edward321 (talk) 04:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge to Eugenics and also potentially Abortion. -- this appears to be important enough to the area of Eugenics to keep, but possibly not strong enough to be its own article. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Altogether unsatisfactory sourcing. This needs a good published source. I listening to the NPR, & its an accusation by someone being interviewed, without evidence given. If there is something here, we need something much more substantial to show it. DGG (talk) 17:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Reliable sources are available to expand the article, 1, 2, 3, 4. --J.Mundo (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per J.Mundo's Google books search results to expand article. Power.corrupts (talk) 21:13, 19 January 2009 (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.