Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard McCulloch


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Richard McCulloch

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Regardless of what anyone thinks about the views of the subject and his writings, that isn't the point: the point is that he appears to be non-notable and there is no evidence of any third-party coverage of him at all. However it is asserted that a Swedish political group used his ideas, but I can't find any reliably sourced evidence of this and furthermore there isn't any evidence that the group in question is notable either. I don't support censorship of ideas. I just believe this page is inappropriate for Wikipedia because the subject appears almost completely non-notable which seems to have been overlooked until now. X sprainpraxisL (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hey, you beat me to it. Person is indeed non-notable, which I found confirmed after wading through ten pages of this. Google Books confirms that he wrote a book, and while I can't wait until I can order the book from Google, notability requires secondary literature. There is plenty of chatter on the internets, but we're building an encyclopedia, not a chatterbox. He must not be a very important racist, since I couldn't find him on the SPLC's website. How sad for him--that would have increased his notability somewhat, I would imagine. Drmies (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth noting that his concept of "racial preservationism" does not entail hatred of other races per se, but rather is more explicitly about the support of the continued existence of the 'Nordish' race (and, for that matter, all other races), and he says that he does not associate with 'neo-Nazis'. Therefore it would be relatively hard for a group like the SPLC to nail a claim against him for 'hate'. Whatever the case, all evidence points to non-notability and that's the bottom line.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is fixable and the guy is notable. Click on "Books" in Find Sources (above) and add "racial" to refine the search. He gets a fair amount of discussion. I may just strip the article down to remove all self-published content and add what the sources say. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the improvement. I changed 'supremacist' to 'nationalist' as I feel it is more accurate based upon what he has written.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I undid that change, since that is not what the source says. This article is likely to become an edit war battlefield, and the rules must be established up front and then rigidly enforced: Only reliable and independent sources, nothing self-published (except where quoted by the sources), what the sources say but only what the sources say. Thems the rules on this one. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is verifiable that McCulloch advocates the creation of all-white nation states, for example in the USA (see here) but does not advocate supremacy of white people over other races (see here). Should verifiability trump truth? It's verifiable by his own account. Personally, I don't really care that much, but I believe that the article is inaccurate and misleading to describe him as a 'supremacist', even if that's what the third-party sources say, because the self-published sources say otherwise. What I would also like at this point is that if no one else comments, that the AfD be closed as no consensus, default to keep, but would value further opinions on whether to keep or delete.--X sprainpraxisL (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Verifiability does indeed trump "truth". Wikipedia should just report what has been said about the subject by reliable independent sources, citing the sources. This is what they have said. Maybe the sources have access to information other than the self-published material. You could soften the statement by saying "He has been called a noted white supremacist", but if every statement is qualified like that, the article gets unreadable. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Non-notable per WP:BIO, not notable in general, and even less notable as an 'academic'. -- Meanpineapplefritter (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The article cites three books and a scholarly paper that discuss the author and his theories at some length. A web search on "Richard McCulloch" racial throws up a mass of commentary, positive or negative. You may not agree with the guy, I certainly don't, but he is clearly notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable, just has some seriously bad views.♦ Dr. Blofeld  21:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep adequate sourcing for notability. Would be without even the Swedish connection & translations, but that adds to it.    DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 29 December 2010 (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.