Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of nationalism


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Owen&times; &#9742;  23:37, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Types of nationalism

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I wonder if there’s any appetite for this proposed deletion. To my mind, the article is a complete mess. Not only is it almost entirely a synthesis of material, but I’m not convinced it warrants an article even if that problem were resolved.

All such an article would do is summarise the "types of nationalism" contained within the Template:Nationalism_sidebar, but given those types already all have their own articles, does that information actually need to be repeated here in an article of its own? Yr Enw (talk) 08:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment - this kind of thing is difficult, IMO. It is clearly true that scholars have defined the topic in different ways and have focussed on different aspects. But I don't really think it is the role of Wikipedia to tie these things together, and it is hard to see how to do that without WP:BIAS and WP:SYNTH. On the other hand, we do have "overview" articles on various topics and I can see that this could be useful for at-a-glance basic information and navigation. It's also possible that printed overviews of the topic exist, so perhaps we are not here creating something new. I'm not sure how to resolve these tensions. JMWt (talk) 08:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:40, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study. For example:
 * As such, the article meets our inclusion guidelines. Editorial concerns like WP:SYNTH can be dealt with via normal editing. The problems are not so bad that wholesale deletion is warranted. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy of nationalisms is not really what that article deals with though. At present, it’s entirely repeated information or synthesised material. Yr Enw (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What, in your mind, is the distinction between a taxonomy of nationalism, and the existing article, which, for example, has divisions of "ethnic nationalism", "civic nationalism", and "ideological nationalism", subdividing the first into "expansionist nationalism" and "romantic nationalism", and the last into "revolutionary nationalism", "liberation nationalism", and "left-wing" or "socialist nationalism". You don't consider that a taxonomy? Jfire (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, of course that's a taxonomy, but you said "Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study" and the article doesn't deal with that. In other words, the article presents a taxonomy, but it isn't about how typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have been dealt with in the literature. But that isn't the only issue with the article. Even if we dismiss that semantic distinction, the divisions in the article all have their own articles anyway, which renders this specific article redundant per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Yr Enw (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As such, the article meets our inclusion guidelines. Editorial concerns like WP:SYNTH can be dealt with via normal editing. The problems are not so bad that wholesale deletion is warranted. Jfire (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The taxonomy of nationalisms is not really what that article deals with though. At present, it’s entirely repeated information or synthesised material. Yr Enw (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * What, in your mind, is the distinction between a taxonomy of nationalism, and the existing article, which, for example, has divisions of "ethnic nationalism", "civic nationalism", and "ideological nationalism", subdividing the first into "expansionist nationalism" and "romantic nationalism", and the last into "revolutionary nationalism", "liberation nationalism", and "left-wing" or "socialist nationalism". You don't consider that a taxonomy? Jfire (talk) 06:41, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, of course that's a taxonomy, but you said "Typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have definitely received scholarly study" and the article doesn't deal with that. In other words, the article presents a taxonomy, but it isn't about how typologies and taxonomies of nationalism have been dealt with in the literature. But that isn't the only issue with the article. Even if we dismiss that semantic distinction, the divisions in the article all have their own articles anyway, which renders this specific article redundant per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Yr Enw (talk) 07:40, 10 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep. While it needs expansion and explanation, I don't see how this fails WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It's more a WP:REDUNDANTFORK than failing notability. Yr Enw (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep per others. This isn't Wikipedia's finest article. At the same tie, sidebars are slimy things, and there's evidently scope for different types of nationalism to be afforded more discussion than a mere listing, as the sidebar offers. IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2024 (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.