Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical fascism

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tropical fascism

[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)

Something of a pro forma nomination: Svejk74 has made a few comments on the talk page going back several years to the effect that this article ought to be deleted, but said that they weren't really sure how to file an AfD. Honestly, it would probably give a better impression of what they've said to just go there and read it, but I will also transcribe it here for convenience.

(April 2020): So, looking closely at this article (which I only noticed as people kept linking it from the Khmer Rouge article):

   Started by a banned user
   Most references didn't actually support the text
   I'm still not sure that the whole thing isn't just based on a few occurences of the phrase "tropical fascism" in a couple of books; it's certainly not a concept in "African political science" as the article originally tried to make out.

(December 2021): To reiterate my previous points:

- No evidence of this existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective

- None of the references originally cited supported the article

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept.

[in response to a couple of references]

I would be cautious of citing anything published after the creation of this article; academics aren't above picking up phrases from Wikipedia!

I would be interested to see what the two older, Brazilian references say but again I suspect they are more likely discussing the Fascist characteristics of the Brazilian military government; also note the original Wikipedia article referred to Tropical Fascism" as a concept in "African political science" specifically.

- There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR.

(February 2022): - There is no evidence of "Tropical Fascism" existing as a defined political concept before the Wikipedia article was started, beyond a few uses of "tropical" as a simple adjective. I checked, extensively, for references in journal articles, books, anywhere pre 2014. Nothing. This is unsurprising, as the concept never actually existed.

- None of the references originally cited supported the article. They didn't talk about a distinct concept of 'tropical Fascism'; if anything they simply drew attention to quasi-Fascist aspects of a variety of (very different) postcolonial regimes.

- The Portugese article has exactly the same issues, being a compilation of various statements about various quite different regimes that have been defined as 'fascist'

As stated in the opening to the article that I added a couple of years back, it seems to have been a phrase occasionally used to describe different post-colonial regimes, not a defined political concept. In short, the user who originally created this article effectively made up the concept of "tropical Fascism", which they stated was a concept in "African political science" (it isn't, or at least wasn't until it was invented for the purposes of the article). It's OR, and dubious, slightly racist OR at that. Are we supposed to believe that there is a distinct variety of Fascism practiced by people living in "tropical" latitudes?

A user appears to be using this article as a soapbox to add various opinions about the Brazilian regime. They might be better addressed at the Brazil page than here.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with Svejk's analysis in this case: it really doesn't seem like this is a distinct concept. It seems like a "very large cake" thing: you can find lots of instances where people use the phrase "very large cake" in newspapers/books, but this doesn't mean that Very large cake should be a Wikipedia article, since it is not a coherent concept. jp×g 🗯️ 07:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JPxG, I look at hundreds of AFDs every week and I don't understand this one. Could you condense all of this into a 2-3 sentence deletion rationale that is posted at the top of the page? I doubt many editors will wade into this wall of text to discern the nuances of your argument. Please be concise if you want to invite editors to participate in this discussion. Just my advice. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, what the fellow said on the talk page: there's not really any evidence that people are using this as a term, rather than as an adjective to describe a noun. jp×g 🗯️ 08:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's very helpful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Africa, Asia, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: May be suited for an entry on Wiktionary, since it is little more than a descriptive term, but not something worthy of covering on wikipedia. As Svejk74 says, it isn't an actual concept in African, or really any other set of political sciences, and most of the parties and governments some users have sought to add to the article dont even meet an adequate number of the criteria needed to be described as fascist, rather than just bordering on it! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - on the basis that this page appears to be WP:SYNTH. The term exists in published works, but it isn't immediately clear whether the authors are actually talking about the same thing or using the same definition for it. JMWt (talk) 18:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., Vif12vf, JMWt, and WP:SYNTH. Sal2100 (talk) 19:36, 28 March 2024 (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.