Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted totalitarianism

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. An article rewrite is called for, incorporating sources presented in this discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted totalitarianism

[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)

This is a non-notable concept that one scholar has used and which a string of non-RS (like Truthdig and Chris Hedges books) have mentioned. The page is a glorified blogpost for the scholar's rambling. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:36, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:57, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coimment: It does seem like the article is written like a promotion/ad more than a balanced article. If the article is to be kept it's going to need a major rewrite. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The nominator is asked to consult WP:BEFORE prior to nominating an article for deletion in the future. Wolin's thesis of inverted totalitarianism is widely considered as one of the most notable criticisms of the post-9/11 era in US politics, and the increasing tendency of global superpowers like China, Russia, and the US to actively suppress democracy as a result of the merging of corporate and state power. Wolin's thesis in particular is supported by dozens of other scholars in their fields, such as Nancy MacLean and writers like Jane Mayer, who have spent decades accumulating archival evidence going back almost a century. The use of this term in the literature is widespread, and can be found in almost every modern critical work of democracy. Viriditas (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep independent RS include: [1][2][3][4][5][6]) The underlying concept meets GNG so deletion is inappropriate and there seems to be enough material to justify a separate article. (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is a long standing article, and the sources provided above by buidhe should be incorporated into the article asap.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Within the set of species-of-totalitarianism, this one is wholely relevant and notable. It would be benificial to add sources to which Viriditas refers. Johnfreez (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2022 (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.