Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditionalist Youth Network

Traditionalist Youth Network

Traditionalist Youth Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I only see coverage from advocacy groups (ADL and SPLC) and advocacy press (antifascistnews.net) which seem insufficient for controversial claims. Notability, given the absence of mainstream coverage, is also an issue. James J. Lambden (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete As nominator. James J. Lambden (talk) 04:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

EDIT, Amended: Redirect Traditionalist Youth Network and White Student Union (Towson University) to Matthew Heimbach. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Coverage from press and secondary sources like the SPLC is exactly what establishes notability. --Parabolist (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete SPLC is not sufficiently reliable to warrant an article. Not everything they ever mention deserves an article. It's 4 SPLC articles (POV rants), a primary source, and one ADL source. Not good enough to meet WP:GNG. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 11:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Conditional support if more reliable sources than the SPLC and ADL can be found and implemented. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 04:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

See links below to Al-Jazeera America and AP/Business Insider. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The AP article contains one sentence of significant coverage about the topic, but this one sentence must be discounted because it is sourced to the SPLC.  Likewise, the minimal significant coverage in the Al-Jazerra article is sourced to the primary web site.  There is evidence of direct WP:N notability in a caption that identifies Heimbach as the founder of the topic.  I see nothing in either article to help write a NPOV article.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - Matthew Heimbach and this group have received extensive coverage in mainstream sources, and I will be expanding this article in the next few days (time permitting) to add more mainstream references. A lot of the coverage pre-dates the Sacramento riot, too. See, for example, this article from AJA, or this article from The Guardian. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, both good articles but Traditionalist Youth Network isn't the primary subject of either - Heimbach is - suggesting an article on Heimbach (with a section on Traditionalist Youth Network) would be more appropriate. Would you say an article on both is warranted and can you list your other sources? James J. Lambden (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Here are some articles that focus primarily on TYN: They initially planned a "Koran BBQ" but subsequently changed the focus of the event to supporting Bashar Assad, they called for hate crimes charges in a Cincinnati beating, and they posted controversial recruitment posters at Appalachian State University. I definitely think Heimbach has been covered enough in reliable sources to potentially have his own article. By the way, White Student Union (Towson University) was also founded by him. I'm honestly not sure what the best strategy is for covering the ever-expanding list of organizations and topics he's affiliated with; the WSU, the TYN, the TWP, and now the Sacramento riots. Having articles about all of them might be a bit too much. Any thoughts? FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Good finds. So we have Traditionalist Youth Network, White Student Union (Towson University) and Matthew Heimbach - all potentially notable but I don't think sufficiently notable to warrant multiple articles. Since Heimbach is the common thread my preference would be an article on Heimbach with sections on and redirects from the organizations. I'll amend my vote. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - per Firedance. Ground Zero | t 21:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - per above; sources are sufficient. Neutrality^talk 23:08, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Can the above voters explain whether their votes are based on the existing sources or on potential sources (and if so which ones?) James J. Lambden (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The ADL and the SPLC's extensive coverage (already cited in the article) is good enough for me. These are full-scale profiles, not passing mentions; both groups are well-known and respected for tracking extremist movements in the U.S. (The nominators' characterization of these groups as "advocacy groups" and another editor's characterization of the SPLC coverage as "POV rants" is silly, to put it mildly.) There is other coverage of this group and its (odious) activities not currently cited that confirms its notability for me; the group's picketing of a leftist bookstore in Indiana received coverage from WFHB (see here) and from the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (see here). Neutrality^talk 23:45, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

See my modified vote above. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 05:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delete and possibly redirect to White Student Union (Towson University)  The SPLC is known for its opinionated viewpoints, and its opinions are only reliable as viewpoints of the SPLC.  While such material adds to WP:GNG notability, our articles require sufficient material to satisfy our core policy WP:NPOV.  The current article shows severe policy problems, such as the second of the two sentences in the lede, which reads, "Established in 2013, the group promotes a racist interpretation of Christianity."  2013 is recent enough that there is no urgency on covering the topic in the encyclopedia (WP:TOOSOON, WP:SUSTAINED).  The comment about Christianity is written in Wikipedia's voice, has no citation, and is not explained later in the article.  As an extraordinary claim, WP:V requires that this claim have extraordinary sources, and I seem to recall that WP:BLP can apply in this situation.  This sentence is displayed on Google after a search for ""Traditionalist Youth Network".  Here is another sentence from the current article, "<name redacted> is also a white supremacist."  There is no citation, and interestingly, the sentence is a WP:BLP violation for not one, but two people.  I saw nothing in the article about the size of the membership of the group, just that it has one chapter.  Meanwhile, a report this week from NBC News [1] cites the SPLC as that the group has ten chapters.  I also reviewed the discussion on the talk page, which shows that there is ongoing concern about how this topic is being covered.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:26, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I philosophically believe in the lowest of possible notability bars for political parties, their leaders, and their youth sections without regard to size or ideology. This is the sort of information that a comprehensive encyclopedia should contain. This article is a little of all three. In this case, it is a pretty clear GNG pass beyond my own normative statement: see, for example, THIS article from Al-Jazeera America, "The Little Führer: A Day in the Life of the Newest Leader of White Nationalists" (on the group's leader) and THIS piece from the Associated Press, via Business Insider, "White Nationalists, Protesters Clash in California; 10 Hurt" (on the group's political party adjunct). Arguably too new of a group for three separate articles, but one article with redirects is more than worthy of encyclopedic coverage. GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep and we should probably merge this into White Student Union (Towson University). It's the same guy, same group, different name. Here's some more sources: an interview with Matthew Heimbach, founder of the Traditional Youth Network. (in French), in depth story from Vice with a short video documentary about WSU, mentioned in BBC coverage.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• In the French article, the additions to WP:notability for this topic occur in the interview question number 1 and a little bit with question 5.  Question #1 and the primary material in the answer to #1 support your point that WSU is closely associated with TYN.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
• Regarding using WSU, this might work.  The French article you cite above ends by saying (Google translate), "We look carefully at the political situation in the US and nationalist movements seem interesting."  The attention is going to US nationalist movements, not the biography of Heimbach.  The WSU article is more neutral than the current article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - possible merge, but don't see a lack of notability here. PeterTheFourth (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)