Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenous Australians and crime

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. Closing slightly early, but it is unanimous keep with the nominator's comments suggesting even they have reconsidered. RL0919 (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous Australians and crime[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

I think the premise of this article is racist and misleading. The overwhelming majority of crime in Australia is committed by the dominant Anglo-Australian ethnic group (more than 60%) yet we have no page on "Anglo-Australians and crime", there is a disproportionality to Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander offending, but it's far more complex than this article suggests. I believe the usable sections of this article should be carefully moved to crime in Australia and this page deleted. As it stands this ethno-criminal focus is undue and highly offensive (At one stage there was a photo in the article of three random Aboriginal people who we have no reason to believe were criminals). I think an article like this focuses unduly on Aboriginal criminality - in an explicitly racial manner - giving the impression that Aboriginal people possess some kind of inherent criminality. Looking at the early versions of this article I believe it may have been created with the intent being to demonise Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples, it has certainly been edited in such a manner at points. The article has been improved significantly by a number of editors, but I really think an ethnically focused crime page like this is unethical, undue and quite simply racist. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Bacondrum (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - although the article may have had problems with edits that are not from a neutral point of view at some stage in the past, the answer to that is to ask for administrators to keep an eye on the article and stop the POV edits. It isn't a reason to delete it - AFD is not for cleaning up articles. If you have a problem with the article, you are welcome to edit it and fix it up. There are considerable numbers of specialist resources, courts and programs looking at the relationship in Australia between first nations people and crime, so an article discussing those things is notable. The article is also considerably sourced. Unless you want to put forward a reason why, according to Wikipedia policy, the article should be deleted, the only proper outcome is for this AFD to be closed. Bookscale (talk) 06:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep While the article would benefit from further work, it's in OK shape so there's no reason to resort to WP:TNT as proposed in the nomination statement. The topic is notable, and the article does a reasonable job of explaining the factors which drive crime and the many problematic aspect of the way in which Indigenous Australians are treated in the criminal justice system. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is well referenced and does (try?) to address an unequivocably notable issue, ie the over representation of people with first Australian nations heritage in our legal and welfare systems. This issue is well and truly notable with endless high quality references available. The article's subject matter does need a sensitive hand when being worked on. (Disclosure - I dePRODed this.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fair enough, thanks for the well considered feedback, I'll work on improving the article instead. Best regards. Bacondrum (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - the incarceration and victimization of Indigenous Australians is a subject that is well documented, and requires an overview such as this article, which is considered carefully, is not inherently racist, in itself as an article, it is the activities related to it might have a range of attitudes that are indeed racist. JarrahTree 05:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thing is the article isn't really framed in terms of the disproportionate incarceration and the victimisation of Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples. The tone is more one of Aboriginal people being more criminally inclined than other people. I've noted the above comments which are all very fair and I now accept the article isn't inherently racist and should be kept. It needs massive improvement though to avoid further demonising Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander peoples. Thanks again. Bacondrum (talk) 05:57, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(I added comments on the talk page instead of here, sorry. Anyway, it's resolved now, I think with a reasonable outcome. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, and thanks for the massive improvements you've made to the article. My desire to see the article removed or improved came from a good place, I don't want to see Aboriginal people tarred as criminals. But I now see was being over zealous. Cheers. Bacondrum (talk) 06:00, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:11, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis both of the subject's blatantly evident notability and of the improvements made to the text. I'd suggest, in case the article stays up, a reconsideration of its title. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.