Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No Nazis

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  Withdrawn. Nomination was withdrawn by the filer. (non-admin closure) Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No Nazis

 * – (View MfD) &#8203;

This is a polemical essay, fine for a blog or userspace, but it is not appropriate for the WP space as an essay.

Some problematic selections illustrating the essay's lack of objectivity and impropriety for the namespace:

There is also a misconception that because maintaining a neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five fundamental principles, administrators would be acting contrary to this if they blocked a racist editor upon learning of their public self-identification. is a pretty important foundational justification for the essay's existence at all, and yet there is no attempt to substantiate it.

many neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, white supremacists, white nationalists, identitarians, and others with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities – hereafter referred to collectively as Nazis inappropriately and controversially applies the term 'Nazi' to all "with somewhat-less-than-complimentary views on other races and ethnicities". There's lots of popular and scholarly debate on whether, how, and when to apply the word 'Nazi' and other forms of comparison to Nazis and the Holocaust. I personally think this is way inappropriate, both trivializing Nazi ideology and crimes including the Holocaust and ahistorically relegating racism to the historical territory of 20th century Germany, which is plainly wrong and absurd.

The section on Nazi beliefs is an unsubstantiated list of beliefs that define what it is to be a Nazi—seems like something that ought to be approached with delicacy on Wikipedia, not uncited polemic.

All one must do is swap out "white people" and "non-whites" for the races in question, and if the shoe fits, their behavior is no more excusable than that of any Neo-Nazi or Klansman. This too is controversial—lots of mainstream scholarship on race and racism would contend that this is untrue. Again, these wholesale declarations are inappropriate for namespace.

Etc etc etc. This essay is a problem. It should be deleted or moved to userspace.

Withdrawn

Zanahary (talk) 23:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. There was an earlier MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:MjolnirPants/nonazis that was a WP:SNOW keep. I guess we could have a discussion about moving it back into userspace, but I really think there is enough of a past consensus that this can stay in WP space. It's certainly polemical, but it's pretty hard to make the case that we want Nazis here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would support it being kept as a Userspace article, and that old MfD seems good to me, since it was a US essay at the time. But that's where it belongs: userspace. Zanahary (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This isn't a reply, but rather an expansion of my original comment, with further rationale. On a policy basis, we do not require essays to reflect wide consensus in the ways that we do for policies and guidelines. It is appropriate to keep essays even if they reflect minority opinions within the community. The fact that some editors disagree with an essay is not a valid reason to delete it. Rather, it must be the case that the essay is so contrary to community norms that it goes against the proper functioning of the project. It is my strong opinion that such is not the case here. As noted below, some editors disagree with some parts of it, but it also gets cited in useful ways. Therefore, I see this as a "keep". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - strong community consensus on relevance, also important on a historical level. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm on the record as disagreeing with aspects of No Nazis, but it's just an essay and I don't think it crosses the line into the realm of WP:POLEMIC. We definitely do not need the kind of disruption that people with those sorts of views almost invariably bring with them. I think that is a pretty uncontroversial position, even if there is room to disagree on some points such as whether to block proactively (which I oppose) or reactively (which I support). -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * But this is not a policy, it's an essay. This essay does not effectively prohibit racists from editing Wikipedia; it just declares, irresponsibly, with no cited sources, attributed ideas, or revealed controversies, what racists (whom the author refers to all as 'Nazis', which I find totally inappropriate) are, and how nasty they are. So the fact that we don't want racists editing WP does not really pertain to the question of whether to delete or userfy this essay. Zanahary (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure I noted that this is an essay. I also believe that its one overarching point, namely that racists and persons of a similar ilk, are by their very nature almost invariably going to have difficulty contributing productively to the project, enjoys extremely broad community support. If you have issues with wording etc, this is not a user subpage. You are free to edit it, provided you don't do so in a way that is itself obviously disruptive. That said, I'm not seeing anything in the essay that clearly contradicts either WP:PG or broadly held community consensus. Thus IMO deletion is not justified. If you see some problems in wording, fix them. If there is a disagreement on wording, seek WP:CONSENSUS. Deletion is not a substitute for cleanup. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep and trout nom, per Ad Orientem. Like AO, I have significant disagreements with this essay, which is why I wrote an alternative essay, WP:Hate is disruptive. And I seem to recall getting into some kind of argument with this essay's author as a result of that disagreement, although I don't much recall the details. But that doesn't mean I think the essay should be deleted. It's a valid perspective on how to handle viewpoints that express hatred for our fellow editors, even if it's a bit too black-and-white a perspective in my opinion. And if the nom's concern is that the essay doesn't cite sources for why racism is bad, well... Yikes. -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 23:39, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And if the nom's concern is that the essay doesn't cite sources for why racism is bad, well... Yikes.I broke down my concerns one by one. None of them are that "the essay doesn't cite sources for why racism is bad". I feel this is obviously a good-faith nomination, I'm surprised at this uncharitable interpretation. Zanahary (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Zanahary (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Tamzin  &#91;cetacean needed&#93; (they&#124;xe&#124;she) 00:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My post is clear that I have a lot of concerns having to do with the propriety and purpose of the essay, and I don't even believe that you think, after reading it, that my concern is that there's no citation for racism being bad. If that were my concern, I'd just find a citation for racism's badness, and add it. Zanahary (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Common sense dictates racism is bad, in a "the sky is blue" kind of way.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 00:36, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Does common sense dictate that all racists are to be called Nazis? Zanahary (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not the point I was making.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:23, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never argued that racism's badness needs a citation. I specifically say that the application of 'Nazi' to all racists is controversial. Zanahary (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I never argued that racism's badness needs a citation. I specifically say that the application of 'Nazi' to all racists is controversial. Zanahary (talk) 01:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * DeleteThis essay is superfluous – if someone is editing with a racist bias, that is already grounds for blocking/banning. The essay is saying that it is acceptable to ban an editor from Wikipedia for their views, rather than their editing. The essay also wrongly implies (a) that non-Nazi forms of racism are acceptable, and (b) that non-racist forms of bias are acceptable. The only function this essay serves is as an opportunity for virtue signalling. Sweet6970 (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see anything here that violates WP:ESSAY. WP:POLEMIC goes to a page on user page content, and anyway objects to Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia. Banning Nazis is absolutely essential to Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * When I say it's polemical, I mean simply that it's polemical, not in violation of the clause directed to by WP:POLEMIC. Zanahary (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with being polemic about Nazis? Hot take: fuck Nazis. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:16, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That has to be the coldest take I've ever seen. 0 Kelvin is a burning hellscape compared to that.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 01:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with it. I just think that the Wikipedia namespace is not the place for it. Zanahary (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep Widely cited essay, frequently quoted in block discussions at forums like ANI. Therefore it is appropriate to keep it in WP space. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep and recommend taking a hard look at OP's recent edits . Like Tamzin I prefer WP:Hate is disruptive but there is no valid reason for deleting NONAZIS. Generalrelative (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you think I have made disruptive edits (or if you think I'm a Nazi—I don't know what you're implying here), you should identify the edits in question. Zanahary (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I'll AGF that your recent efforts here and here are motivated by genuine concerns. But be aware that some of the LTAs who routinely make similar arguments as you in the race & intelligence topic area are indeed actual Nazis. Generalrelative (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know which of my edits you're generously not using to accuse me of Nazism. Zanahary (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm generous like that. Generalrelative (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely the funniest part of my Wikipedia journey has been when my good-faith contributions are met with the snarls of super-editors who think smug hostility and put-downs are a good way to engage with one another. Implying I'm a Nazi (anti-authoritarian Jewish African homosexual btw), then walking it back without an apology but with a patronizing "Oh, I'll be nice, but just so you know, bad people have said what you've said", is baffling coming from someone ostensibly at least somewhat dedicated to a project rooted in collaboration and frank, objective aggregation of truth. Zanahary (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Inexplicable nomination. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, instead take issues with it to its talk page. At five years old, 202 authors, 1760 incoming links, MfD as a one week backwater is not appropriate. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment I would gently encourage the OP to withdraw the nomination. While I believe it was made in good faith; based on current trajectory and the weight of arguments, I think this is going to end up as a SNOW close in the near future. I would also point out that as far as I have been able to discern from their comments here, they have not advanced a policy/guidelines-based argument for deletion. Their rational seems to be that they think the essay is poorly worded and overly broad in its use of the term "nazi." That is not a completely unreasonable opinion as that term is certainly a pejorative in common usage. But it is not a valid reason for deletion. This is a discussion that belongs on the essay talk page, possibly with some kind of RfC. But at this point I am convinced that this nomination is going nowhere at the speed of light. Whatever problems the essay may have, real or imagined, this is not the right response. (courtesy ping ) -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. I will withdraw it—how do I? Zanahary (talk) 03:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Just strike out your nominating statement and type withdrawn underneath it and sign. I will drop a note requesting an uninvolved admin close the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:44, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Zanahary Looks good. I've left a note at WP:AN. Someone should be along to wrap this up in the near future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:52, 2 December 2023 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.