Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in the 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 was delete. Even those recommending keep all agreed (or most of them anyway) that this the page as it stands is not acceptable. That strongly comes down in favour of a WP:TNT deletion.

The strogest argument I saw for the existence of the page was from Slatersteven: "No article on one party can convey the real and powerful fear that Nazism represented to American liberals in the 30's." That is not an argument from policy of course, but together with WP:GNG could justify a better recreation of the page.

Anyone considering doing that should take into account the strong criticism of the current article that it fails to adequately distinguish between Nazism and neo-Nazism and the coverage of neo-Nazism has no place in an article of this title. SpinningSpark 16:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Nazism in the United States
AfDs for this article: Articles for deletion/US support for the NazismArticles for deletion/Nazism in the United States
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A clearly broken page, with many WP:NPOV violations, and almost seems like an attack page at times. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:52, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note To really explain what I'm trying to say, see WP:JUNK, an essay. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  02:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is the article in quotes: "Sometimes, an article on a notable subject comes up for AfD, which, however, has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Perhaps its only source is a promotional, questionable website. Perhaps its material seems to be completely made up from thin air. In such cases, just delete it. Wikipedia lacks articles on a lot of things, and, if the people who found 87 blog and chatpage sources using the University of Google really cared about the subject, they'd find reliable sources to remake the article." &mdash; JJ Be  rs  12:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A: This is an essay, not policy and B:The article up for AFD meets none of the suggested reason for deletion, it is clearly sourced to multiple RS, it clearly is not promotional and it clearly is not made up.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I said it was a essay above, and I quoted it to fully describe what I was saying.... &mdash; JJ Be  rs  12:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but it still doers not support deletion as this page does not violate it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole essay is about deleting really broken articles and restarting them. I don't get why you didn't read it. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  18:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is not a policy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I already said that, I'm using it as a way to describe my deletion rationale. &mdash; JJ Be  rs  18:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I think it is flawed. I do not agree that this article is in such an appealing state it cannot be remade. I simply do not agree this article is so bad it cannot be repaired.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Certainly needs major WP:CLEANUP, so before going too far with this AfD I recommend perusing WP:AADD. So, my !vote is Keep. Upon reading the rationale from others I'm switching to the Delete side. – S. Rich (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC) 02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep, Look at the history. One add information supported by sources, the other delete because his heart can not tolerates historical facts that indicates that America could have been contaminated by the Nazism. Where is the support (books, news article, etc) that basis the systematic destruction of the article? "I don't like it" is not a good reason. Show us the source that contradicts the statements. This is not Russia or China. This is the Wikipedia. Dr. Loo Talk to me 03:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is best not to ascribe motives to the contributions of editors -- you have no way of knowing what is in an editor's "heart", and should assume good faith about their purpose in adding or removing material from the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This is 'professional level English'? --Tarage (talk) 04:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep – "Weak" only because the article at this moment is extremely deficient. The subject, however, is a legitimate one, Nazism (and Fascism in general) has been a consistent fringe political belief in the US since the rise of Hitler. Whether it is a coatrack of another article, I don't know -- will someone please specify what article that is? This article in its expanded form will probably overlap significantly with German American Bund, Neo-Nazism and other articles, but if it brings together these subjects and presents them together in their historical context, it would be a worthwhile addition to the encyclopedia. It is most assuredly not that now, but this simply means that editors who are knowledgeable about the subject need to expand it into what it can (and should) become. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Coatrack of an article? First you'll have to explain what you mean by this.
 * As to "what it can ...become" What should it become that is not completely covered now by three better articles? Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Far too many issues/redundancies to fix. Merge it in with Antisemitism in the United States. --Tarage (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the "see also" section of the article. Nazism in the States has existed in multiple forms and while this article is not great now, deletion is not the answer: cleanup is. Having an article that presents an accurate synthesis of Nazism in the United States is absolutely warranted on Wikipedia, and it doesn't fall foul of any of WP:NOT in an irredeemable way. Since it doesn't fail NOT, and most certainly passes GNG, I can't see a reason not to have it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no portion of this article that should not be legitimately covered by en.wiki's articles on the Bund and on Neonazism.  If there is anything in this article not there now that belongs, merge it.  For other countries, Germany and Austria most obviously, where there was a continuous nazi movement, a single article makes good sense, but WWII was almost completely disruptive to US nazoids.  Anmccaff (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands the article would need to be gutted and built from the ground up. If someone wants to step up and take this under their wing I would say keep it provisionally, but short of that the article could always be constructed again at a later date. Tivanir2 (talk) 07:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The article as it is now is crap, but the same was true (arguably truer -- even the title was ungrammatical) last September when there was (weak) consensus to keep. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Addendum If, per my response to User:MjolnirPants below, a closer wants to take me as being a "tacit support" for TNT deletion of the article, they are free to do so. I actually agree that TNT should be a valid rationale for deleting a page that has nothing worth salvaging. In fact, if more crap articles got deleted per TNT without regard for N and NOT, there would't likely have been a recent blowup at ANI with the creator of a bunch of crap articles trying to game a few AFDs that resulted in "keep" into a HOUND case against the user who, in good fai, posted the articles in question for deletion. And the one time I tried nominating a page for deletion per TNT (back in 2014, mind you) I was overruled by the "Forget TNT; it's all about GNG" crowd. I just don't see TNT deletions happening a whole lot, and so don't generally take it into account when !voting in AFDs. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't buy that logic. If it was crap last September and it's still crap, that means that it's not going to improve. --Tarage (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Then the people who think it is crap should be trying to improve it, not delete it. Now I have no idea how bad it was last September, but Hijiri88 seems to imply it has improved.Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of the people who want it deleted to improve it. If the people who voted to keep it can't improve it enough to the point that it deserves to be kept, then it shouldn't be kept. --Tarage (talk) 10:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is the job of everyone. Indeed I seem to recall that you should only nominate and vote for delete after making an earnest attempt to look for sources and improve an article.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's be clear -- if I was in a position to judge absolutely whether the article has improved or gotten worse, I would ... well, I'd be a much better GA reviewer than most of the people who actually do GA reviews. I'm saying that at first glance it has improved at least a little (at least it's title is literate English), and whether or not it has improved it almost certainly can be improved. It's not like there's someone saying No. I will not allow changes to be made to this page to make it conform to policies and guidelines. I think it is fine as it is. If you think it is crap, then you should just delete it. If that was the case ... AFD still wouldn't be the place for that discussion. But if the rationale for deletion is the same as it was last fall, and it survived AFD last fall, then something invalidating the "keep" !votes must have changed since then. Just saying that the article is still crap isn't enough, in my opinion. There was consensus to keep, not to keep, on condition that the article be brought up to code by May 2017, at which point a new AFD should be opened. This isn't GAR we are talking about; this is about whether the subject meets our inclusion criteria or not. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep As others have said, it is not that this is not a real subject, just that the article needs work. It's not as if Wikipedia is not fuill of other kinds of "XXX on XXX" type articles, why should Nazism in the USA not have one?Slatersteven (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I support this article for Fascism in the United States and extend it. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 09:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We have two articles that say the same thing (literally it seems, in some instances), these need to be merged.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is because a particpant in this AfD copied an old version of the article to what had been a simple redirect. During the AfD. That looks like the sort of thing that needs some admin attention.  Anmccaff (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * PS:I've restored the re-direct. Anmccaff (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is the case, yes we need an admin to take a look. But I am mystified as to why it was done, as it seems an argument for deletion (we have this already).Slatersteven (talk) 15:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on the (repaired, mea culpa) link, do you have any doubt whatsoever that this is the case, ? Anmccaff (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well that is the odd thing, because either I have the wrong user or he voted for keep and not delete.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The perpetrators of the article originally tried to float two versions simultaneously, probably on the theory that one of them might survive AfD; I think this is the same mindset in play. Anmccaff (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It looks like there was a similar article in 2005. Please send his historical archive to Luiz, we need to expand this. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per TNT. Also, it is a duplicate. We have the Articles German American Bund, Neo-Nazism, American Nazi Party, and Antisemitism in the United States.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:17, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fascism is not Germanism, anti-Semitism or National Socialism. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, that's why we're talking about NAZIS. And to get the !vote below, I too am opposed to Nazism, and think (if done prorperly) an article on Nazism in the US should exist. But the current article should be removed and rebuilt from scratch, preferrably with parts from the existing articles mentioned above. Too much NPOV, and the history is filled with bad edits.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  12:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * So why not change the title? 201.17.139.105 (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We normally reserve WP:TNT for things like borderline notable actresses who haven't preformed in anything in over a decade and whose article is sourced to a blog. This is about a major historical ideology and its prescence in a world power that fought on the opposite side of it during a World War. This isn't the type of article we should TNT. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can hide this from the public while y'all are fixing it? Oooh, how about Move to Draftspace. Atatck articles shouldn't be public where they are disgracing Wikipedia.  d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  23:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It maybe badly written and/or biased in it's current form but the topic is a perfectly legitimate. I, like the vast majority of sane people, am opposed to Nazism but that does'nt mean the topic should be written about. Djln Djln (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Agreed, it is not the best-written article, but that is an argument for improvement, not deletion. Emeraude (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The article on Iraq's al Qaeda was minimal before 2004, we should wait until at least 2019 to see if it should be eliminated. 201.17.139.105 (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- here's a chapter titled "American Neo-Nazism" from a book by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, Black Sun: Aryan Cults, Esoteric Nazism, and the Politics of Identity. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A book for scrutiny . 201.17.139.105 (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To add to the above we must also remember that there was a real (unfounded maybe, but real) fear of a fascist take over of the USA (see swastika night. That this was not one (or even two) parties and that (i would argue) it was the fact it was a fragmented movement, rather then ideological disdain that made fascism in the USA so weak. No article on one party can convey the real and powerful fear that Nazism represented to American liberals in the 30's. Nor can an article (or even 15) about historical parties that are now defunct convey the fact that many of the same kind of people fear it is rising again. Hitler admired American racist laws, as did the wider Nazi movement.Slatersteven (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, Swastika Night is actually about German military victory, in England, rather than about fears from any homegrown-version in the US. Terrifying, but an external threat. And "Friendly Fascism" has next to nothing to do with nazism or neonazism, but about an establishment grown so intertwined as to be stultifying. That  added it here is a symptom of what is wrong with the article: agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick.  Anmccaff (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct I was thinking of It Can't Happen Here.Slatersteven (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this irreparable article per WP:TNT.  Mini  apolis  22:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect/Merge The page works as a subpage about the Second World War. Having a list of groups described as "having Nazi tendencies" is an obvious topic for vandalism. Power~enwiki (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The intended scope of the article goes well past WWII into current times, so this comment seems inappropriate. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What you describe as the "intended scope of the article" is generally self-promotional in nature, and should not be included in Wikipedia. A single Nazi organization might be notable; a list of twenty otherwise-non-notable groups is not. Power~enwiki (talk) 04:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But we have several notable organizations: the Klan, the StormFront, the Silver Legion, the Bund ... It's not because it has become a big list that can not be fixed. 187.104.26.115 (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Vide: wp:PENSE.187.104.26.115 (talk) 08:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes I mean a list would be so hard to remove or rewrite. Also not being notable is not relevant for inclusion in an article, only for having one. As to an target for Vandalism, well then we should not have pages on any politician then, this is not an argument for deletion but for watchfulness.Slatersteven (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. Note that any "keep" !vote that acknowledges the major problems with this article is tacit support for a "delete per WP:TNT" outcome. Unless there's someone who honestly believes WP should keep an obviously crap article because it's better than no article, in which case I suggest repeated trouting of that editor until they understand why policies like WP:V exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  14:36, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * MPants, you're probably right. Honestly, my !vote was partly coloured by how rarely I see TNT deletions actually work. I am reminded (pretty constantly) of an incident a few years back where it was basically 5-2 in favour of deletion of a similar article from day two until day eight (with one of the two clearly only having shown up to !vote the opposite way to me), on day eight two random AFD junkies showed up and !voted keep, clearly without having read either he original deletion rationale or any of the ensuing discussion, and on day nine it was closed as "no consensus". It was almost like there was some conspiracy at work, since the hound was !voting against his own POV, the closer just happened to wait an extra two days to close what had previously been a clear consensus to delete, and then right before the closer chose to show up, two dei ex machina show up out of nowhere to turn the tables, with those arguing in favour of deletion not even having a chance to convince them to change their misplaced !votes. So, yeah ... I guess I'm a moral support for TNT deletion, but procedural oppose on the basis that I don't think TNT deletion actually works. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is certainly a fair view, and I understand it. And I don't think this subject should go without an article (even if it's just a quick overview with links to other pages). But the version I saw was pretty bad. I'm not opposed to wiping the page and starting over fresh, but to me, that's a TNT !vote. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that both chronological parts of the article (prewar Bund, and post-war neo-nastyism) are already covered by far better articles, just blowing it up would work fine, especially with a little salt plowed into the dirt. Anmccaff (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * TNT (delete) The article is, to put it mildly, not very good, not very coherent, not very neutral and not exactly properly sourced. I could overlook things like "Mien Kamph" (sic) if there were at least proper sources for the various claims made. Kleuske (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - While rewritten, this has improved only slightly since its previous AfD, Articles for deletion/US support for the Nazism, last September. here is that page at the close of the previous AfD. I agree that the topic could be notable, but I still don't think this page passes WP:NOR and WP:NPOV and I think the most likely path to passing those guidelines is a complete rewrite, so keeping the article/saving its history doesn't seem overwhelmingly necessary. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. The 1930s through the end of WWII are already covered by German American Bund, quite a good article.  The post War period is already covered at Neo-Nazism.  This article is a WP:POVFORK and a violation of  WP:SYNTH, not least by its unscholarly conflation of the Naziism of the Hitler era with the sharply different phenomenon of post Third Reich Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether this winds up on salt or not, the attempts to clone it need to be. Anmccaff (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I really think this page should remain at least as a redirect. In fact I think a reasonable case could be made for moving the Bund article to this title, since the meaning of "Nazism in the United States" is universally clear, while only people with a fair degree of technical knowledge are familiar with the name "German American Bund". That, plus the inherently non-NPOV nature of using the "official" name of a fascist group that was deliberately identifying itself with a specific ethnic minority group (not all of whom identified with Nazism!). I think it would be a terrible time-sink to actually try to move, and possibly refocus, the page, and have no intention to do so. I just think the current title should be kept as a redirect, and perhaps put on permanent full protection or extended-confirmed protection, rather than the traditional definition of WP:SALT. If removing the revision history is important (not arguing this one way or the other), then maybe rev-del, or delete the page, then recreate it as a redirect, then protect it. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The conflation of Nazism with neo-Nazism is a fundamental flaw with this article and the reason why WP:SALT needs to be applied.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That said, I do see the value of, as User:Hijiri88 suggested, redirecting this article's title (but not content) to German American Bund, and of directing the title American Nazi Party to German American Bund as a search term very likely to be used by users looking for the 1930s era Bund.  While renaming the article American Nazi Party to that 1959 fringe political party to it's other name National Socialist White People's Party.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, but ... American Nazi Party is not a whitewashy euphemistic name, even if it is problematic in its conflation of skinhead wannabes with the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It's also debatable that the majority of people who search it are looking for information on the Bund. I wouldn't know, since I'm not American (and so am automatically in a fringe minority of our readers) and have a disproportionate interest in the history of far-right groups. As I said above, the Bund is not really all that well-known to popular culture, whereas the skinhead wannabes are, having played a prominent role in a classic 1980 comedy film. I don't think I've ever seen an off-handed subplot in a film that assumed awareness of the German American Bund, but I might be forgetting something. (I also used to be addicted to shows like The FBI Files and Forensic Detectives, and I distinctly recall an episode of the former about Joseph Paul Franklin referring to the "American Nazi Party".) Whether this or that specific group is the PRIMARYTOPIC shouldn't really be determined by your opinion or mine anyway, nor is it a topic for an AFD. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen something about American policies resembling fascism here. 189.101.36.156 (talk) 18:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * But the contemporary Nazi wannabes are not Nazis, they are Nazi wannabes. The only significant nazi parties (in terms of size or impact) were in the 1930s.  Hatnotes can handle users looking for the sundry groups of modern wannabes.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:09, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if you want to get technical about the word "Nazi", I might as well point out that, as far as I am aware, the Bund were not a political party in the conventional sense, which technically makes them even less of a noteworthy political party than later groups that were/are American political parties that use the word "Nazi" to describe themselves (and are described thus by third-party sources) whether or not they really are Nazis. The Bund was only the "American Nazi Party" in that it was an (at best unofficial, again as far as I am aware) American wing of the Nazi Party. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Hardly any attempts have been made to expand the article at all, even at the current form the article doesn't seem to be bad. Capitals00 (talk) 06:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * See why some people think salt? Either didn't read it, or couldn't understand it, but still absotively convinced it's relevant. As long as this article exists, or spin-offs from it exist, this will be the standard of research and writing. It doesn't need trolls to come by to disrupt, it's autotrolled. Anmccaff (talk) 18:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment K8 D10 R1. (next person to say "it's not numbers it consensus" gets a trout) I don't think some of the early keep !voters don't get that this is not about Notability. This is about an article that is/has been from nearly the start (original article author is innocent) used for unsourced NPOV, coattracking and attacks. The subject is clearly notable (even though it is covered in 4 or 5 other articles as said by multiple editors). But the current version and 95% of past versions are unfit for human consumption and it could be argued that they are candidates for rev-del. that is why the article is here fior deletion. I have no opposition to it being immediately being created with section yanked from the aforementioned 4 article and then new stuff, along with an indef SEMI. This is why I mentioned Moving to draftspace in my delete !vote.   d.g. L3X1  (distant write)  14:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The topic is notable, but there is no article here. There is one paragraph that touches on the topic promised by the title. Move to Neo-Nazism in the United States and it's a start. Srnec (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm support, Luiz. 201.17.138.36 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Is this bibliography good? He did not accept her:

"Edwin Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation (London: Crown Publishers, 2001)".


 * Vide Bulgarian National Front. 2804:14C:5BB6:8EF5:FC02:90F6:634C:E0B4 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * r.i.l. agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick? Anmccaff (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Support for Hitler (or Fascism) in the United States2804:14C:5BB6:8EF5:FC02:90F6:634C:E0B4 (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yepp, that's again what we mean by agenda-driven writers digging up any mud they can off of tendentious, incompetent searches, and flinging it, hoping some will stick. Thanks for the illustration.  Anmccaff (talk) 02:05, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * They could change the name of the article to Totalitarianism in the United States and put Zoster content there. 189.61.187.196 (talk) 16:34, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment If half the energy that has gone into this AfD had been put to improving the article, it would be better for it, and so would Wikipedia. I'm exremely busy in RL right now, what's everyone else's excuse for bitching instead of fixing? Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No "excuse" is needed, getting rid of this page -is- improving Wikipedia, full stop. It's an attach page, a POV fork, and a rolling ball of incompetent research and writing. If it were brought into standards, it would simply parallel other, better, existing pages that already cover the same ground. Anmccaff (talk) 17:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that User:Beyond My Ken misses the point, certainly out of good faith and probably due to lack of familiarity with the nature of scholarship on Naziam - an vast academic field with more than its share of pseudo-historians and revisionists,. But a field where Wikipedia, like Wikipedia articles on hotly contested forms  of identity, is subject to regular attempts add POV forks that, as Anmddaff states, "simply parallel other, better, existing pages that already cover the same ground."E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I may well have "missed the point", but it's not because of unfamiliarity with the things you mention. I am, in fact, fairly familiar with them.  You, actually, have yourself missed the point, which is that I don't agree with you concerning the (potential) value of the article.  That has nothing to do with ignorance on my part. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside any mistaken assumptions made, what would you see a cleaned-up version adding to Wikipedia? We already have several good articles covering the same ground; adding more might just create backwater articles with few eyes on them, and I think this article is a great example of what can go wrong with that. It's a damned pity that Wiki can't handle this sort of thing with transclusion.  Anmccaff (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What article is it that you believe covers the overarching history of Nazism, specifically -- not Fascism in general -- in the United States, from the German-American Bund through the current neo-Nazi groups? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't one, because there wasn't one. WWII caused a nearly complete break. Anmccaff (talk) 04:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, there's your problem. There does not have to be a physical connection between groups, as long as they share the same basic philosophy.  There's an obvious and almost continuous political lunatic fringe in the U.S., even after WWII, which is clearly based on Nazism. To deny that is to deny reality. The current article sucks dead bears through straws, but it can be rewritten to be the article that covers that history. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is this article's problem. There is no decent scholarship showing the "nazi wannabes" as EMG put it above having any real continuity with the old Bund, and for very obvious reasons. The Bund's leadership was essentially a tool of a government that declared war on the US, and that was the breaking point for most of the membership, and for outside tolerance.
 * It isn't coincidental that this article has has bad sourcing, misrepresented sourcing, misunderstood sourcing and flat out made up sourcing, and that isn't all down to its promoter's deficient English skills. It's because the article is in opposition to mainstream scholarship. To ignore that is to ignore reality.  Anmccaff (talk) 05:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are confusing physical or personnel connections with adherence to a political philosophy. The article is (or should be) about the latter, because there is no former.  The lack of "continuity with the Bund" is irrelevant, the Nazi philosophy and political agenda was clear, and anyone who adheres to it is, perforce, a Nazi, whether they've ever heard of the Bund or not.  You position is untenable and frankly, absurd. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I don't feel any need to confuse anything here, having so many right nearby willing to do it themselves.
 * Three points. First, anyone who adheres to a reanimated philosophy from the past is the very essence of a neo-nazi.  Neonazis are very nicely covered already in Wikipedia.  Next, you appear to be attempting to argue from authority...your own, that is.  I see no reason why that should have any relevance here, that you find something absurd might reflect lack of knowledge, or poverty of imagination.  Most importantly, though, Wikipedia is supposed to be a trailing tertiary source, with nothing but the most dead-obvious synthesis of ideas allowed.  What's your source here?  You've already rightly conceded there's a real break between prewar and postwar organizations, what do you think is a good mainstream source for any overarching continuity? Anmccaff (talk) 07:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep clearly notable. Even if the article is poorly organized and written, that just means it needs to be fixed.  Hopefully when this WP:AfD completes there will be enough non-involved eyes on it to make it be referenced fully on high quality independent WP:RS.  I have added it to my watchlist and everyone else who sees that it needs work will do the same until it get fixed and we can leave it alone...Nazis planned march on Skokie, IL (Jewish suburb of Chicago with Holocaust survivors), free speech case enabling that march: National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie, Chicago Tribune Article about that planned march, Nazi Summer Camps in 1930's America. In fact, Nazism in Cincinnati is probably notable. Nazi March planned for Cincinnati 1-10-2007, Nazi march in Cincinnati cancelled, Nazi March in Cincinnati 1970's   Marge Schott former owner of the Cincinnati Reds banned from MLB for pro-Nazi comments , Jewish Community Relations Council monitors Nazi activity in Cincinnati, Neo-Nazi's create 'enemies list' 12-14-05, Borowitz Satire 'Sanders Sends Vegan Thugs to Attack Peace-Loving Nazis' (at Trump rally in Cincinnati). --David Tornheim (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A closer coming across this vote, essentially based on one point that everyone agrees on, that the general topic is notable, and a Trump-like assertion about what a great article it's going to be, will rightly ignore this as WP:ILIKEIT. Anmccaff (talk) 13:49, 16 May 2017 (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.