Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascism (United States)


 * 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 of the debate was NO CONSENSUS, whichever way I read it. -Splash talk 01:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Fascism (United States)
Primarily original research and POV. The only verifiable claims are material lifted from the Neo-fascism page. This page has had cleanup tags galore for weeks and has made little progress, due to apparent lack of interest. The one author working on it can do so in his sandbox. It should be deleted and the title redirected to Neo-Fascism. keith 08:29, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep this article, as it documents important historical information about Fascism in the United States. It has much room for expansion, but there is no reason to delete it.  --Dschor 08:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete then Redirect per nomination. Redirect covers your concerns adequately already. keith 08:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article does not count as OR as most of the views mentioned are attributed with quotes to notable people or groups. In the article Neo-Fascism there should be a description of neo-fascism in general terms, on the features common to all neo-fascist groups, with summary paras for different countries and a see main article link. This would be one of the pages linked to. It isn't an inherently POV topic, and POV that could be fixed is not a reason for deletion. There is enough good content to keep, tidy and NPOV it. --Squiddy 12:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a bit conspiratorial in tone but the first few sections are well referenced from good sources. FDR on need to be made clear that it is allegations of fascism rather than universally accepted that he and the rest were fascists and McCarthyism on needs to be expanded and referenced. Not too fond of the title either. Something like Fascism in the United States would be better. Keresaspa 12:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Cut out every single unsupported assertion; if there's not enough left for anything more than a stub after that then merge into Neo-Fascism. -- Stlemur 12:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Low quality article, but a legitimate topic. Needs cleanup not deletion. Choalbaton 13:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep and clean up. PJM 13:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect Author has not attempted to make a balanced article, until the article can stand on it's own it should be in a page that has active editors balancing the article. PPGMD 14:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This article is filled with erroneous information. Also, if this soapbox article is kept, it should have a companion article called Communism in the United States with a list of Democrats to provide balance.Endomion 15:45, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up as Fascism in the United States. The existence of fascist movements in the US is a fact of history. Endomion is welcome to create a companion article. Gazpacho 17:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a fact that there have been movements, but no editor has stepped upto the plate to balance this article, ATM it doesn't have anything that makes it stand on it's own. Neo-Fascism already presents most of the facts in a much more balanced context, until there is way too much content about the US in Neo-Fascism, it should stay there. PPGMD 18:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect--Cberlet 21:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect As cberlet says. Arkon 21:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would just like to take this moment to state that my vote, at the very least, is a delete vote. Arkon 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect per Chip, because it is the right @!#$%^&* thing to do, though apparently that principle only applies to articles that slander political parties, and not to ones that slander globally observed faith systems. BYT 13:46, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect per PPGMD above and below. The title is legitimate, but there's essentially no valid content there now. Tom Harrison Talk 16:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is so messed up I see no way to save the poor thing. Paul, in Saudi 10:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. This appears to be an article written with the purpose of attacking the Republican Party through the rhetorical device of hyperbolically calling it fascist.  Obviously POV.  Is there an award for "Most Transparent Use of Wikipedia for Espousing a Political Agenda"?  Logophile 16:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Presumably you would argue to delete Islamofascism on the same grounds? BYT 12:27, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, but severely compress the George Bush section. And add something about Huey Long.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete This page represents the worst of Wikipedia. Dschor consistently refuses to make this page NPOV. Marmaduque 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have made some effort to approach NPOV, but have not had much help. This is not the only article I am working on, and it would be great to have some help, rather than a load of critics.  --Dschor 12:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete conspiratorial hate article, as Logophile and others explain. --Ajdz 23:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/RedirectThe only new content in this article is POV attack on the Republican party. --Mmx1 02:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect &mdash; Conspiracy theory - article doesn't contain more than just POV/original research/personal essay on one political party -- Mistress Selina Kyle  (  Α⇔Ω ¦  ⇒✉  )  14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is that if the content of the article were improved, and if it focused on, say, the claims that there have been fascist or neo-fascist movements in the US, or the use of "fascism" as an epithet in American political discourse, or the recurrent claims that political leaders like Huey Long were fascist, you would vote to keep? Just want to be clear here. BYT 14:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I think a clean up and expansion of the United States section of the Neo-Fascism article would be a better start, once that section gets too long them you fork it out leaving a main article link on the Neo-Fascism page. By doing that, you would get more editors involved since there seens to be a group that actively works on the fascism articles on that page. PPGMD 15:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Neo-Fascism and Delete/Redirect. The topic is legitimate and deserves its own article, but this page is exactly what that article should not be (an editorial).  Improve the Neo-Facism article or try the sandbox.  --Vector4F 20:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Stlemur. This article is a mess of OR and unsupported assertions, but could potentially be a real article. Once the unsourced assertions have been removed, then if there's not enough for a stub, merge and redirect to Neofascism and religion. Babajobu 22:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, restricting content to pre-WWII. Replace all post-WWII content with See Neo-Fascism, an article that only deals with post-WWII fascism.  The earlier history is a valuable and important topic, and could be developed from an outline.  Mornington Crescent 02:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's not OR by definition since almost everything is referenced. - ulayiti (talk)  16:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, we have Islamofascism, and the presence of fascism in certain parts of the US in its history is much more obvious. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep American Fascism is and has been a part of the American experience. Write a better article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 23:15, 5 January 2006 (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.