Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race and crime (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 consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Race and crime
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article was redirected to Anthropological criminology (the same exact topic, but adds modern theory and evaluation to Race and crime's anachronistic racist history) on August 31 per discussion whose last two comments were on July 14 and August 30. An editor who did not take part in this discussion has restored the page. There is no need for both of these articles; Race and crime is a POV fork at which several editors (or socks?) have tried to reinstate a series of statistics in violation of wp:PSTS ("Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them."), and which even those who want the stats in the article claim have proven unanalyzable by professionals. Furthermore, Race and crime is an absolute wp:coatrack, at which racist history and unintelligible stats are covered rather than the huge and multifaceted sociological treatise one might expect with the title "Race and crime". NJGW (talk) 08:22, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note about previous AFD While the previous AfD was keep, it was emphatically keep and clean-up (emphasis in the original). Here is the version of the article before that AfD, which is basically the statistics mentioned several times here and too many clean-up tags.  In the 1.5 years since the AfD, all that has happened is that the history from Anthropological criminology has been inserted and the statistics deleted and reinserted several times (to be fair, some POV and OR junk has been removed as well).  Clean-up does not mean take info from another article to replace the unsalvageable, and thus the terms of the previous AfD have not been met.  NJGW (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt with redirect to Anthropological criminology, if that's possible. Delete and salt if not. The article has long been a coatrack for racist pseudoscience, and the proper article deals with the topic properly. Verbal   chat  09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How is this article a wp:coatrack? Looking through the history when statistics, such as imprisonment rate by race were included they were scrubbed out. Where is the wealth of statistical evidence that it ignores to meet the requirements of being a coatrackZzmang (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a coatrack because a set of admittedly unintelligible statistics keep getting paraded instead of any meaningful content. NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a bad page, not a wp:coatrack, if you spent as much time improving the article as you do censoring it the situation might be different. Zzmang (talk) 07:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep of course. Yes it is a topic of racism, but a perfectly valid one. AfD isn't for article cleanup. Anthropological criminology is a related topic. A possible merge can be discussed off AfD, without all the excitement (zomg, the article discusses racism!). The result of the 1st AfD was "keep and cleanup". Well, what are you waiting for? Slap cleanup tags on it and start cleaning it up. Dragging it to AfD every few months isn't a substitute for that. --dab (𒁳) 09:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No need for merge - a simple redirect would suffice, and this a suitable place to discuss it. Verbal   chat  10:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Anthropological criminology" isn't about race in particular, and the article you're trying so hard to get deleted has some valid discussion of historical notions on race and crime in particular. Anyway, this is not a discussion for AfD but one for article talk. If I was calling the shots on this, I would speedily close it as an invalid re-submission of an AfD already concluded with "keep". --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The merge is appropriate specifically to Anthropological Criminology. The only information which might be moved (though it's two sentences could use some expansion and caveats) is Race and crime.  As you say, if there is to be an article which remains, it should be a sociological treatment of racism... which it is not at the moment, so what ever there is now can be moved/removed to avoid NPOV.  NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, to dab: the last AfD was 18 months ago. Issuing another AfD after 18 months isn't unreasonable, considering that consensus can very well change over such a long period of time.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge (whatever can be salvaged) and redirect to Criminal anthropology. Otherwise, Race and crime becomes a racist POV fork of the other article.--Ramdrake (talk) 10:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * this may come as a shock, but Wikipedia actually has warning templates such as NPOV, synthesis maintenance templates such as mergeto, and offending material can be removed with a single edit, all of which has nothing to do with the AfD process. --dab (𒁳) 11:56, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Criminal anthropology currently redirects to Anthropological criminology. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per talkpage discussion and performed several months ago. The merge was properly proposed (on both potential target pages, if I recall correctly). If there is valid material that did not get merged the first time, it is still in the article history. There is no reason why Anthropological criminology#History could not be expanded to cover more historical perspectives, and eventually be spun out using proper summary style. - Eldereft (cont.) 12:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep "Anthropological Criminology" is basically about criminal phrenology. Race and Crime should include statistics, sociology, theories, etc. These aren't here atm, but that's grounds for improvement rather than deletion. Also I'd agree with dab that this article has already had a submission for AfD rejected, and I would dispute there was ever a consensus to merge the page and Anthropological criminology was not even proposed on the Race and Crime discussion Zzmang (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * reply there is no "sociology, theories, etc." present in the current article. All there is is your same criminal phrenology and statistics which (according to a person who wants them included, and claims to have researched thoroughly) have never been analyzed by pros in an NPOV manner (seems kind of troublesome to expect lay persons to do what pros can't).  BTW, this is a new and different nomination, and will be judged on it's own merits.  Here's the July 14 merge proposal that you're having a hard time finding.  NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * keep WP:NOTCENSORED Deleting a page because you think it is racist is censorship. Unfortunately we have to have pages on all topics and the freedom to discuss awful things. The Muss (talk) 13:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment how can you reconcile racist and NPOV? NJGW (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * you consider statistics racist, so under that definition it's easy to reconcile statistics and NPOVZzmang (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon??? Where have I called statistics racist? The article appears written and in some cases supported with racist intent, and I'd like to know how racist intent can be reconciled with NPOV, the point being that removing POV statements and articles is not censorship.  I'm not sure what this is a difficult point for you to understand.  NJGW (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge whatever can be saved into Anthropological Criminology: Muss, please note that the rule you're invoking only is meant for encyclopedic discussion and inclusion of something which parents of minors or social groups would object to (such as Clitoris or Muhammad), not coatrack articles or biased forks. -  Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 21:06, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So does that mean you think that "biased" pages should be censored, even if that bias is merely presenting stats and theories in a NPOV? Zzmang (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Biased" pages should have POV statements and sources removed, and only contain NPOV material. Perhaps, if "biased" opinions are notable, then they can be discussed as being "biased".  This is covered at wp:NPOV if you'd like to know more.  Please don't confuse censorship with neutrality, reliability and verifiability.  NJGW (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't what I was meaning. I was saying WP:CENSORED isn't meant for stuff like this; it's meant for articles where there would be severe social objections.  I did not mean coatrack articles and biased forks were subject to censorship (rather, they should be fixed to remove the bias or, failing that, removed outright).  I apologize if my wording made it seem otherwise. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 01:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one confusing NPOV NJGW, people are saying this page is biased because they feel it has the potential to enhance bias about race. The reason this page is so terrible is because some of the very POV pushing editors calling for it's deletion are the same who have consistently sabotouged this page by deleting any statistics with false accusations (or simple misunderstandings) of synth and original research. This page is one of the most important pages dealing with criminology on wikipedia. Want to talk about systematic bias - wikipedia doesn't even have a page on Black on Black Crime. Zzmang (talk) 06:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about White on White Crime, Asian on Asian Crime, Men on Men Crime, Women on Women Crime, 50-year old on 50-year old Crime, American on American Crime, Dutch on Dutch Crime, etc? Those important subjects don't have articles either, I see. --Crusio (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a new series on Channel 5. Verbal   chat  09:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlike arguments about synth, OR, coatrack and Bias at least the premises are true for your argument. Your reasoning however is wrong, and so is the conclusion. Black on Black crime is notable by being the leading cause of death of a demographic (young black males) and has attracted significant media attention. Zzmang (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I gingerly suggest that Poor inner-city youth on poor inner-city youth Crime might be more on the mark. --Crusio (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd disagree for several reasons. 1. Inner-city might be a codeword for black, but black on black crime occurs in other areas (aside from "inner-cities") at high rates as well. 2. Blacks of other ages are also disproportionately victimized. 3. Black on Black crime is the notable and verifiable name for the phenomena.Zzmang (talk) 11:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

keep This topic is cogent to sociology.Gooogen (talk) 10:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  20:34, 6 October 2008 (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.