Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Discrimination

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Discrimination. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Discrimination|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Discrimination. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch
Shortcut

Discrimination

[edit]

White Flight in Gary

[edit]
White Flight in Gary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I kicked this to draftspace at Draft:White Flight in Gary, but the author contests. It's loaded with unsupported claims and I just don't think it's ready, so I'm seeking feedback from the community on whether this should continue to exist in mainspace or should be workshopped qua draft. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:43, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion - It's extremely challenging to suggest it's got so many unsupported claims, and consequently deleted, when it is subject of many articles - both in news media and academic - and is so worthy of an article in its own right. There are around two dozen or so references, and if something isn't supported by those, flag it - but this is not a reason to remove the entire article. Few, if any, statements are unsupported - and the items flagged as unsupported tend to be referred to in previously marked references and so consequently just need to be marked again. Please be bold and improve rather than deleting Berocca Addict (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, what's being proposed here is that the article be incubated and worked on in draftspace rather than in mainspace—not that the article be evaporated. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:22, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both deletion and moving to draft space. I've seen a number of articles in main space that have fewer and poorer citations than this one. Could it use more detail? Yes, but it's unlikely to receive help from other editors if it's in draft space. The most obvious cleanup issue is to remove most of the section headings; we don't need a section for every one, two, or three-sentence paragraph. Indyguy (talk) 20:34, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Matters (advocacy group)

[edit]
Sex Matters (advocacy group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The NPP @Klbrain was mislead as the author missed to attribute the article as a WP:SPLIT from Maya Forstater, but seeing his comment at Talk:Sex Matters (advocacy group)#Feedback from New Page Review process, he did point out that the notability appeared marginal and suggested a possible merge to Forstater’s article. That statement still holds true and the article mostly appears to have been created as a WP:PROMO piece, particularly as of this before I tried to salvage it. Even now, most of it is still largely just a collection of promo quotes from WP:INTERVIEW statements by people connected to the organization, which we typically discount for notability, so after some more thinking and given the circumstances, it’s probably worthwhile to bring up the issue at AfD and seek some wider thoughts of whether it should be deleted/merged back to where it came from. Raladic (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Raladic, you have substantially - and unilaterally - rewritten longstanding consensus content with no discussion, prior to creating the AfD, and done so in a way that introduces its own NPOV issues. Sex Matters is a notable charity with ample coverage that meets WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SUBSTANTIAL, and they are prominent in several current news events eg. as significant interveners on the UK Supreme Court ruling, involvement in the ongoing Sandie Peggie tribunal, etc etc.
And many more. They are in the news in the UK practically every day right now. The article can be improved with a balance of sources and some the profiles of the org as a whole. Deletion is overkill.
Void if removed (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can't cherry pick the criteria - WP:SIRS needs all 4 criteria to be true for organizations - Almost every single one of those sources are quoting/interviewing people of the organizations, so they don't establish WP:INDEPENDENT notability as I pointed out in the nomination above. This is longstanding practice at WP:AfD and is especially strongly enforced for organizations as they are often in the business of self-promotion. The fact that some of the links you just listed WP:MISGENDER people doesn't help with WP:NPOV there either. Just being in the news isn't enough, especially when it fails our WP:NOTADVOCACY policy.
An eprint on a university website likely doesn't pass RS, so that leaves maybe the published journal paper, but given that it only has a small mention of Sex Matters, talking about its desire of surveiling transgender people, which isn't mentioned in the article, it's not in-depth coverage, so we'd need stronger sources than that to establish independent notability. Raladic (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what independent means. Also what exactly did you mean by this edit comment? Void if removed (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See below.
For your second question since you haven’t been involved in many AfDs yet, you probably haven’t encountered it yet, but when we get IP users popping up at AfD (which doesn’t happen that often), and make single line votes, those are usually ignored and when they appear to come from a partial blocked sock range, we tend to stay on the cautious side and tag the discussion to remind people that these discussions are based on specific criteria, not a popularity vote. That’s what the note is for. Hope that helps. Raladic (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Void. Embarrassing example of WP:JDLI — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8F8:2D1C:BF3:1853:D86D:FA7F:BE4D (talk) 12:00, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Clearly meets WP:BASIC. Just searching on The Times app I have found over 50 articles mentioning them this calendar year alone, including 6 in the last week. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BASIC applies to people - this is an organization, so WP:NCORP, which has different and pretty strict guidelines. The mere existence of mentions isn't enough, especially if most or all of those mentions are primary quotes, aka not independent per WP:ORGSIG - "Notability" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Raladic (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above rationale Czarking0 (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Void if removed. Sources such as the Standard [1], Pink News [2], BBC [3] are clearly WP:SIRS coverage, satisfying WP:NORG. Almost every single one of those sources are quoting/interviewing people of the organizations, so they don't establish WP:INDEPENDENT notability - this is completely wrong. While quotations aren't independent, the rest of the source can be as long as the author is independent of the organization. You are arguing that any source containing a quotation from members of an organization cannot be used to establish notability for that organization. This is entirely antithetical to Wikipedia guidelines and long-standing community consensus. Astaire (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you check the other sources referenced? Almost all of them are WP:PRIMARY news coverage of some events. I was using independent/primary somewhat interchangeably just as our guidelines do in various places and didn’t link both independent and primary, but just used it linguistically to say independent notability (whether that’s because of non-independence of interviews, or it being WP:RSPRIMARY. Wikipedia:Identifying and using primary sources#Examples of news reports as primary sources Is pretty clear most of the those sources above are primary news coverage, most of them breaking news. Raladic (talk) 18:46, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not "breaking news". No news organization interrupted its coverage to report that Sex Matters sent the Scottish government a letter.
    Please read Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Secondary sources. For the purposes of NORG, primary sources are considered to be annual reports, interviews, press releases, legal documents, etc. Media coverage does not fall into this category.
    Even going by these arbitrary criteria you've set, the Standard and Pink News articles are clearly secondary, as they provide analysis of the group separate from any events they're involved in. So your complaints about "other sources" fall flat. Astaire (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From your link: In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include:...
    The word "wikt:en:frequently", meaning often, does not mean exclusive, it's merely a list of what is very common in business settings, since NORG is about organizations, in addition to the usual primary content. It doesn't supersede WP:PRIMARY.
    I didn't argue that PN, Standard that you had linked above are not secondary, that's why I said "the other" - the ones you didn't link. We need more than 2 or 3 secondary sources as Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability. per WP:PSTS/WP:N and we take a much stricter look at neutrality of sources. Particularly so when we're looking at an organization that has its hands in WP:PROFRINGE promotion of Wikipedia:Notability#Fringe topics (such as advocating against bans on Conversion therapy) Raladic (talk) 04:13, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as I mentioned in the AfD intro - the articles existence is based on (accidental?) deception which mislead the NPP review. I queried the NPP reviewer Klbrain what they would have done if they had known it was a split, their response: ”As an unacknowledged split, I would have rolled back the page with WP:BLAR, advising a formal split proposal if it was argue that a split was really warranted.” (talk:Sex_Matters_(advocacy_group)#c-Klbrain-20250721160200-Raladic-20250721064800 link to comment. Raladic (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sex Matters is a registered human rights charity that has been, and continues to be, involved in some important issues being discussed in government, in the courts and in workplaces. It was involved in the For Women Scotland victory at the UK Supreme Court that defined the meaning of 'woman' as used in the 2010 Equality Act, it is representing Sandie Peggie in her high profile employment tribunal which comes down to the issue of her claimed right to single-sex changing rooms in the workplace, and it continues to engage with government and others to further its agenda. Whether or not you happen to agree with their cause, the organisation is certainly notable and there should be an article about it. It would be wrong to have is merged into another article as it is clearly much bigger than any one individual. Slàinte mhath a chàirdean (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The article seems to have been created under less than ideal circumstances and there are several problems with it. Nonetheless I think that this has now become a notable topic. This isn't a case of a mere Twitter account pretending to be an organisation. It's not entirely astroturf. Of course, it is still primarily a vehicle for Forestater's political campaigning but it is not only her involved. It has been able to make itself notable by inserting itself into multiple legal proceedings and even achieving charitable registration. It has the ear of the media and that confers notability even if sympathetic media coverage makes it sound rather more significant than it really is. If the article was bad enough to be a TNT case then I'd probably suggest unsplitting it but it would probably only get split again anyway, which would waste a lot of everybody's time only to end up right back where we are now. It would be better to work on the issues. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that multiple news sources often them for comment does constitute independent recognition of their notability. Besides, this is exactly the kind of topic where a reasonable member of the public might read a news article, think "who are those people?" and look on Wikipedia for an answer, which is surely partly what Wikipedia is for. Dionysodorus (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. (per Void if removed). RationalWikian (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unbelievable deletion nomination, the org easily passes GNG and as a matter of fact is the primary topic of the term "Sex Matters" and should be moved there, Sex Matters the TV show should be moved to Sex Matters (TV series).★Trekker (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Columbus, Ohio

[edit]
Racism in Columbus, Ohio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOPAGE. I believe previous discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tenant harassment lawsuits and cases in Santa Monica and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change in Baden-Württemberg, where a broad topic is given a hyperlocal framing, are relevant here. This article is essentially a history of racism in the United States - the Great Migration, Jim Crow laws, redlining, Brown v. Board of Education, etc. - as applied to a single city. It would not be feasible to have hundreds of articles about "Racism in X U.S. city" with generic content like this. There is nothing extraordinary about the history of racism in Columbus in particular to justify an article. For example, the article currently says that Columbus is the 55th most racially segregated city in the U.S. out of 112 cities - right in the middle of the list. Some of this content can be selectively merged to Columbus, Ohio and Columbus Division of Police. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, and Ohio. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and seems a bit coatracky. Metallurgist (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first 4 paragraphs of History section to Columbus, Ohio#History, delete the rest. Much of this article (sadly) applies to just about every major city in the US, making this a bit of a WP:COATRACK for a generic topic. Other parts of the article might be merge-able to Racism in the United States, as a city-specific example. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:GNG, as there are plenty of great sources here which are specifically about this large American city. It is fine to have local history in Wikipedia naming particular people, places, and events, even if other cities have comparable circumstances. And other places in Amercica do have similar circumstances, because in Category:History of racism in the United States by state or territory, we have several hundred other articles about location-specific circumstances. The nominators are correct that Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles, but I am entirely sympathetic to the idea of documenting the intersection of cultural heritage and places, especially when we have so many sources. I also recognize WeirdNAnnoyed's complaint that lots of the history is repeated from other places, but in this article, I see either uncited claims which have other Wikipedia backing like links to main articles which do have citations (" safe for African Americans to visit... only four survive: the Macon Hotel, the Hotel St. Clair") or kind of routine, but with a local authority cited like https://doi.org/10.2307%2F2714730 . As a general principle, I would support anyone creating articles for any well documented civil rights movement in any city, regardless of potential repetition, just so long as there were local sources and wiki-notable concepts to report. Bluerasberry (talk) 23:52, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    passes WP:GNG I actually don't think it does. This source is specifically about racism and public health. This source is specifically about redlining. This source is 80 years old and is mainly about "Negro life" rather than racial discrimination. And the other sources in the article are even less useful. Where are the sources that discuss "racism in Columbus" as a whole, uniting the different topics discussed in the article? If there are none, this runs into WP:BADTHINGS issues, as other users have said.
    Wikipedia does not seem to currently have any other "Racism by American city" articles Not only are there no other "Racism in X U.S. city" articles, there are not even any "Racism in X U.S. state" articles. As far as I can tell, this is the only subnational article about racism in any U.S. location. And there is probably a reason for that: the creator (who is now inactive here) appears to have been very passionate about creating articles on local Ohio topics. Yes, this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, but the argument grows in strength when there are hundreds of cities and 50 states, all of which you argue could have their own "Racism in X" article, and yet none of them exist. We should ask ourselves why that is. Astaire (talk) 06:16, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Astaire: Wikipedia's bar for passing GNG is very low - just two articles on the topic. I se no ambiguity about this article passing GNG. For a topic, we need articles which address that topic, and there is no identify a broad textbook with a unifying vision. As you say, we have articles covering distinct aspects. These include racism in Columbus Ohio for housing discrimination, police, protest events, tourism, and social justice programs. There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative.
While we do not have other racism by American articles, we do have demographic by city articles including LGBTQ culture in Chicago and History of African Americans in Houston. Intersectional topics in Wikipedia are inconsistent because they are low-readership and because we have few editors. Despite this, building out local culture is common in Wikipedia and we have many such articles, even if we do not have complete national sets.
The creator - whose page I watch, and through whose talk page I found this discussion - has been prominent in Wikipedia for their views of thoroughly documenting culture by cities. I think this is a good thing, and wish local historians and interested community members would build out whatever local perspectives they like. Wikipedia does not have a size limit, and we have no need to prune content which passes fact-checking and topical relevance just because a topic is local to the level of a city. Even after all these years, it is also still okay to do new things in Wikipedia. Interest in city history is quite common in every city in the world, even if our Wikipedia editorial ancestors hardly did this. I am in favor of every city in America building out articles like this if anyone organizes content of this quality. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no source which combines all of these into a unifying narrative. Yes, this is exactly my point: there are sources which cover aspects of the subject, but no source that directly addresses the topic of "racism in Columbus" as a whole. So the case for GNG is dubious.
Compare this with your example of LGBTQ culture in Chicago, where the "Further reading" section gives three whole books that are directly about the general subject.
There is a stronger case for reworking this into History of African Americans in Columbus, à la your second example, since this article is already halfway there. And there are indeed sources which address that topic as a whole: e.g. [4], [5] Astaire (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Wikipedia wants unifying narratives, and this article is deficient for not having one. Despite that, I still feel that GNG is a much lower standard than that.
It could be nice to have an article titled, History of African Americans in Columbus, but if we did, this content would be WP:UNDUE to merge into that for showing a long focused history on only one aspect. We could not just rename this article to be about culture. Also, I do not think we should delete the content of this article just because it is not connected as a subtopic to something higher in the hierarchy. I could establish a brief parent article if that helped the case for this one, but if I did that, the parent article would be a placeholder for a later editor to add more and contain a subsection on racism which pointed to this article. I do not think it is realistic to attract anyone to build a Columbus focused African history article in the next few years though. Bluerasberry (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these sources give unifying narratives over decades, from probably 1800s to 1940s. From the wiki article -
"Frank Uriah Quillin, who wrote in his 1913 book The Color Line in Ohio: A History of Race Prejudice in a Typical Northern State: 'Columbus, the capital of Ohio, has a feeling toward the negroes all its own. In all my travels in the state, I found nothing just like it. It is not so much a rabid feeling of prejudice against the negroes simply because their skin is black as it is a bitter hatred for them.'"[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Oliphint, Joel. "Cover: The roots of Columbus' ongoing color divide". Columbus Alive.
  2. ^ Himes, J. S. (1942). "Forty Years of Negro Life in Columbus, Ohio". The Journal of Negro History. 27 (2): 133–154. doi:10.2307/2714730. ISSN 0022-2992. JSTOR 2714730. S2CID 149546155.
Bluerasberry (talk) 12:48, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:GNG, there is no guarantee 2 sources will be considered enough. I guess it could happen, if they are great on-topic sources with extensive coverage etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:16, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing notable about racism in Columbus Ohio. Was racism in Columbus more notable than Birmingham Alabama? Racism occurs everywhere, that doesnt make it particularly notable here. There may be a case for History of African-Americans in Columbus, Ohio, as suggested above, but this aint it. Metallurgist (talk) 20:09, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. 71.231.11.148 (talk) 05:36, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This IP appears to be blocked for vandalism and the vote ought to be discarded or removed. Metallurgist (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discrimination Proposed deletions

[edit]

The following articles have been tagged for proposed deletion:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Discrimination&oldid=1302020639"