Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Color of Crime (New Century)


 * 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. The consensus was to either keep or merge. While there is clear consensus to keep this in some form, there was no clear decision as to keeping or merging. Article is kept, and a new discussion should be opened to decide if the material should be merged into New Century Foundation  SilkTork  *Tea time 20:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The Color of Crime (New Century)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non notable selfpublished leaflet by semi-notable racialist organization. No coverage in reliable third party sources. ·Maunus· ƛ · 12:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not adverse to merging to a relevant article.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

*Delete no coverage from third part sourcing fail notability The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 14:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has received media coverage including on BET.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrrrr5 (talk • contribs) 12:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)  — Rrrrr5 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Prefer deletion but redirect seems a viable alternative The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:44, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I am not seeing enough coverage under scrutiny for it to be deleted but not sure it has enough coverage for its own article. Thus Merging seems most appropriate The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 18:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:FORK. This is an unbalanced article directly describing a controversial primary source, not discussed in any secondary sources. The article concerns a 24 page White supremacist propaganda pamphlet with no ascribed authors. The leaflet is already amply described in the parent article New Century Foundation. Mathsci (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The suggestion below of Arxiloxos is also fine by me. Mathsci (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to New Century Foundation and adjust the DAB page The Color of Crime accordingly. No need for separate article, but possibly a legitimate search term since this piece of propoganda is mentioned in press reports here and there.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Racist nonsense. No ref. Szzuk (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Question. Do you mean that our article itself is racist nonsense or that it is about racist nonsense? The first would be a valid reason for deletion, but the second would not. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to New Century Foundation. Article is NPOV and unreferenced as is.--Dmol (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Non notable POV junk not covered in 3rd party sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:32, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Google news archive search has 17 results for "The Color of Crime" AND "New Century". The first one is an article by Pat Buchanan which mentions it and list the stats from it.   D r e a m Focus  18:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not an article it is an editorial/opinion piece. It does not establish notability by a very long longshot.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:21, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Psst WP:SIGCOV portion of WP:NOTE is the most relevant. WP:SIGCOV portion cover the issue here. The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 22:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge redirect - Aside from the obvious POV issue, there isn't enough independent and significant coverage of this publication to justify its own page. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * BET, C-Span, and the Washington Times aren't enough? Rrrrr5 (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No amount of passing mentions is enough. Notability is established by coverage in sources that are about the topic, not sources that merely mention it.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And with the amount and depth of the coverage it does have, and the relatively little information available, it doesn't seem very logical to have this information separate from the article on the foundation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Washington Times mentioned it is only supported by a blog post by Jared Taylor, who also complains that the media is conspiring to silence the pamphlet. That is a pretty good case for lack of notability and fringe status in itself.·Maunus· ƛ · 15:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: The article under discussion here has been rescue flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Yaksar (let's chat) 02:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Has to say Keep per Dream Focus reasonings.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete. The content of the publication is irrelevant. Many semi-notable organizations have journals, newsletters, or various publications that receive GHits but are not notable enough to fork into a stand-alone article. Merge sourced information, then delete as "The Color of Crime (New Century)" [emphasis on "(New Century)"] is an unlikely search term. Location (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If a merge is done I'm pretty sure the original has to remain as at least a redirect for attribution reasons. Although given the amount of information and the amount of coverage it should get in the organization's article, it's entirely possible for the information to be included there without a merge from here.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are references to it in a number of books.  As well as articles, though most are behind pay sites -- still, what we can see (some of which is now in the article itself) is sufficient to reflect notability.  Not pretty stuff, but we can't let idontlikeit be the reason for deletion when it has been noted in a number of books, including those put out by university presses (Cambridge, U of Missouri, as well as Macmillan), over the years.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment By the same logic every new piece of propaganda—described in the secondary sources as "racist" and "white supremacist"—from this publisher, such as [ http://www.amren.com/features/hispanics/index.html Hispanics: A Statistical Portrait], should have its own wikipedia article. It's surely better to treat  all of these in New Century Foundation. Mathsci (talk) 03:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, its tempting to censor the racists. But if it is sufficiently covered in RSs and meets our notability standards, it is not that it "should have" a wp article ... but the question is whether it should be deleted.  If it meets our notability standards, even if it is Mein Kampf or the Protocols, we tend to cover it.  Subsuming it in another article and redirecting the searches for this publication to that article would not seem to me to be more than cosmetic.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a question of censorship, just of where an appropriate place is to describe such propaganda, in its proper context. A passing mention in a footnote of a secondary source does not establish separate notability. Along with the "Hispanics" article mentioned above, the footnote gives it as an example of a genre of document, with no discussion of its content.  Mathsci (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Multiple references to it in RSs, including it being termed "a classic" of the genre of output by white nationalist academic racists, sways me. That it is propoganda (to us) is not the key point, IMHO, but actually diverts us from focusing on the fact that it is IMHO sufficiently RS-covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * None of the sources are about the Pamphlet, but pnly mentions it. Notability is only established by sources that are explicitly about the topic, not sources about other topics that give it passing mention.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Maunus -- I'm confused. As I just mentioned, inter alia, one of the sources even calls the specific pamphlet "a classic" of the genre.  That certainly strikes me as "about the Pamphlet", and there are a number of sources in the article even  -- let alone viewable in a google search -- that suggest that your assertion in the nomination that there is "no coverage" in RSs is over-exuberant, and perhaps doesn't quite cast an accurate picture.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an SPLC Intelligence Report article explicitly about this, and the C-Span source explicitly discusses it. Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just out of curiosity, so I can read up on this topic some more, where are the sources that you found? Rrrrr5 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You might look at some of the specific sources in the following google searches:articles, articles 2, books, books 2, google, google2, google scholar, scholar 2 As you can see, there are even more RS references in the searches than are (now) reflected in the article.  In addition to the references, criticisms, use of it to support positions, and kudos variously found in


 * 1) ^ "Jared Taylor/American Renaissance: Ideology". ADL. January 11, 2011.
 * 2) ^ "Race and Crime Report". C-SPAN Video Library. June 2, 1999.
 * 3) ^ "Glenn Spencer". Southern Poverty Law Center. July 29, 2000.
 * 4) ^ Carol Miller Swain (2002). The new white nationalism in America: its challenge to integration. Cambridge University Press.
 * 5) ^ "Coloring crime, SPLC, Intelligence Report, Issue Number: 99". Southern Poverty Law Center. Summer 2000.
 * 6) ^ Barbara Perry. Hate Crimes. Greenwood Publishing Group.
 * 7) ^ Paul Gottfried (2004). Multiculturalism and the Politics of Guilt: Toward a Secular Theocracy. University of Missouri Press.
 * 8) ^ Walter Donald Kennedy (2003). Myths of American slavery. Pelican Publishing.
 * 9) ^ James P. Cantrell (2006). How Celtic culture invented Southern literature. Pelican Publishing.
 * 10) ^ Pat Buchanan (2007). State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of America. Macmillan.
 * 11) ^ "The Color of Crime in the U.S.". Ocala Star-Banner. August 23, 2007.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Pelican publications are described by the SPLC here as Neo-confederate. In addition Gottfried has spoken at AmRen conferences (run by Jared Taylor). Some of the authors are linked to the association  Sons of Confederate Veterans. So it is unclear how many of the sources given above are reliable in this context. Apart from a passing mention in a foot note of Hate Crimes, the only WP:RS which describes the pamphlet objectively in any detail is Carol Swain's C.U.P. book. Mathsci (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect per Mathsci. Holding Ray (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC) — Holding Ray (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep after the enormous improvements to the article's sourcing by Epeefleche. Notability is sufficiently demonstrated in reliable third party sources, and documenting racist tracts is not the same as endorsing them. Quigley (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Tx for the kind words. I do understand how the early !voters could have been misled by nom's blanket statement that "No coverage in reliable third party sources".  Am glad to see that, once that is show not to be the case, the reaction is different.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The publication seems to have attracted some comment and it is our editing policy to keep the good work which has gone into documenting this. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * merge or delete - per Mathsci, and Arxiloxos. The RS's used are very slim for a stand alone article, but enough that a straight up delete is probably not the right course.  I do think a redirect to whereever it goes is good idea.  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 15:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The original article as nominated was short and unsourced... suitable for redirection or merge. However, over the following week, and through the work of several editors, including the nominator himself, the article has been much expanded and sourced, and now shows itself to be a suitably encyclopic article about a notale topic. As was once pointed out to me, sunlight is the best disinfectant.  If someone wants to look up the book and comes to Wikipedia, at least it can be seen who the detractors consist of, and their thinking. We offer balance. And as we are here to aid readers in an understanding of topics, this one now serves the prohect.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Weak keep, despite that I think it's nutbars. By their logic, crime in NYC should have gone up as the number of minorities increased, while in fact it has gone down drastically in the past 15 years.  It's a fringe publication, all right, that is "not even wrong" -- its statements and claims are divorced from science, and are not reality-based.  Whether it's a notable fringe theory or publication is colorable.  I'm not in favor of publicizing racists and crazees, but there are some citations.  I'm not sure Pat Buchanan and the Washington Times could be considered reliable, but Southern Poverty Law Center is the go-to group on Hate crime laws in the United States.  It also depends on an interpretation of WP:SIGCOV, and whether you think it's a good or bad idea to publicize such nonsense.  So I'm leaning towards a keep, but I won't be heartbroken if it goes away or is merged. Bearian (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2011 (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.