Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machiavellianism (politics)

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Machiavellianism (politics)[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a severe breach of Wikipedia's content fork policies, as the entire "political thought" section is merely a truncated summary of pieces of the articles found at The Prince and Machiavelli's original page, visible here. One user tried to copy and paste an entire section from the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre article, visible here (which is still a CFORK). His reputation, influence, and thought are all carried out on their respective pages, making this article have no real usage. Also this article fails in the NPOV department, as the article states that the topic is a "trope" and with statements such as "turned almost into a caricature of devious villainy. Though in discussions of Machiavelli's thought "Machiavellian" and "Machiavellianism" may be used in reasoned critiques, in general usage the terms more often occur in political polemic". No matter what "source" you put before that, it still does not read neutrally. Also, the article has been disambiguated for no reason, as it is one of TWO usages of the term, which would justify a hatnote, not a disam page. Redirecting or merging this article wouldn't be a problem, but deletion seems the far better option, as the contents explained in this article are explained elsewhere, also in a objective way. SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 06:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator I realize that now is not the time for an AfD, and also other commentors answered without reading or acknowledging my concerns, giving the "keep" opinion an unfair advantage. Other than that, the article can be fixed.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Apart from the sheer bad manners of nominating an effectively new article (for less than 24 hours) carrying an "in use" template, this matter has been under discussion for some time at the talk page, where only 2 days ago SuperWikiLover223 said (his bolds): "However, I have no problems (absolutely zero) with keeping the political article, granted we do either a disam page, or a dab remark on the proposed new psych page." This is only one of a number of complete flip-flops he has done in the course of the discussion. He was the one who (a tad prematurely, imo) performed the split to create the new Machiavellianism scale yesterday. I then set up Machiavellianism, the old page, as a dab (as had been more or less agreed on talk), and had begun the process of refocussing this article. I entirely agree that, and have said throughout the discussion, that the potted summary of Machiavelli's actual political philosophy was much too long, and a content fork. I have now solved this problem by hiding the lot of it - a few sentences of similar stuff will be needed for context, but it was waaaay too long. In the recent past SuperWikiLover223 has argued for keeping this stuff, and I'm glad to see he now agrees it should go. SuperWikiLover223 has always had difficulty accepting that the subject of the article, the trope of a caricature of M's philosophy, exists, and has removed very well-referenced material on this. This is not covered at all on the main M page (a SuperWikiLover223 reserve these days) and should not be given much there apart from a sentence and a link here. The case might be compared with a suggestion to merge Reds under the bed with Marxist-Leninism. This should be a neutral article on what was never a neutral subject at all - SuperWikiLover223 needs to be able to tell the difference. He has also been removing chunks from the article, in an inappropriate way, and despite the in use tag. This nomination should be speedily closed; after a few hours the article is by no means ready to be assessed yet, hence the in use tag. I'll also point out that he has been canvassing editors who he thinks (perhaps wrongly) will support his position, [1], even in one case starting a virgin talk page for an ip, but he did not contact me, as the creator of the new form of the page, in the same way. Johnbod (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When I said that "i had no problems with the article" was before the subpar rewrite of the article, that's filled with NPOV and CFORK issues. And I was not trying to canvass editors, as I ways trying to notify them of the AfD.SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A political ideology can not be limited to the article on its founder or its eponym. Dimadick (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How does the St. Bartholomew's massacre matter at all to the ideology? Did you see my concerns?SuperWikiLover223 (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is clearly a significant topic. I'll note that AfD discussions must be conducted with civility on all sides. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment New commentors on the page may want to look at it now and see if it is not a content fork of this section of the St. Bartholomew's day massare article, which the other commentators so far have missed.

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.