Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fascist movements by country

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 August 5.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 Kept: Sceptre, you allegations are unsupported, and if you can find evidence that there is libel, is suggest you remove it. Many articles may have libel, but we do not delete them on solely these grounds. Other articles are on contentious topics, and there is often much caution taken in regards to this. It is worrying that such a high profile topic lacks references, but I should think that effort should be put toward finding these references rather than destroying such a series of lists. And, if references cannot be found for contentious material, then it can be removed, as has always been done. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fascist movements by country[edit]

Not a single source between the five, and as such is a landmine for libel against the listed parties. While some may indeed be fascist, it is impossible to differentiate which are undisputedly fascist and which were called fascist by outsiders. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons does not apply as the list is not a list of living persons. Sources for inclusion on the list are, by and large, in the linked articles. There's nothing wrong with removing unsourced statements but deleting the list wholesale, particularly with so many indisputably obvious examples for inclusion, is extreme. -Stlemur (talk) 18:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said "BLP violation". I said "libel landmine". Corporations can sue for libel, too. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article provides objective criteria for inclusion. --Eastmain (talk) 18:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AFD is not cleanup, this seems like an excellent, encyclopedic list, certainly anyone studying fascism or political history in general could very plausibly be assisted by a well-organized list of articles about such movements. If they're unreferenced, remove inaccurate ones and/or find references. The issue of whether they're self-described fascist movements/organizations could easilly be solved by adding a new column to the table. Again, all problems with this article are ones that call for cleanup, not deletion. --Rividian (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This sort of article takes a sledgehammer to the neutral point of view, dynamites the remnants, and drives a locomotive over the very small pieces. I cannot think of a way to list fascist movements other than self-identification which doesn't place very negative commentary on parties listed. RayAYang (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- RayAYang (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For a series of lists that have survived and grown for 3 years (probably never in obscurity because of the subject) I find this nomination a bit of blatant POV. There are probably many entries in these lists that can be rationally debated on the grounds of Verify, NOR and NPOV but certainly the lists as a whole are very well done and encyclopedic. To the comment above that the existance of these lists takes a sledgehammer to the neutral point of view, is a bit misguided. NPOV doesn't mean nor should it mean that WP content may not be offensive or viewed as negative to anyone.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rividian and Mike Cline.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and deal with disputes by discussing them on t he article talk page. DGG (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reexamining the list to be sure, I think there could be no possible doubt about the great majority of them, most of which openly proclaim their orientation in no uncertain terms. There are one or two I know about and think doubtful, and while their inclusion may lead to some sharp discussion, we can cope with that. DGG (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just because the inclusion of some movements may be borderline, isn't really sufficient reason for deletion, but rather the inclusion (or not) of some movements should be discussed in the article talk page. Perhaps there is a need for List of alleged fascist movements by country to cover the questionable cases. Martintg (talk) 06:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh god, it would never end. liberals, conservatives, communists, anti-communists, parents who say their children can't borrow the car... --Stlemur (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While the topic is encyclopedic, the main definition used in the article ""parties, organizations, and movements that have been claimed to follow some form of fascist ideology" and the list of criteria used are quite inadequate. The problem is that most items on the list of criteria involve fairly abstract concepts, widely open to interpretation and where the degree to which a particular item is supposed to be satisfied is also rather wide and unclear. Since we are talking about politics, accusations of being a nationalist party or following a totalitarian ideology or "using modern techniques of propaganda and and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition" or even direct accusations of following fascists ideology or methods in particular cases are quite common among political actors and are being thrown around in politics rather freely. There is too much room here for arbitrary interpretation of what constitutes the standard of proof and how to deal with POV and undue weight issues in deciding if a particular criterion is satisfied. (In fact, reading the list of the criteria in the article, it would appear, for example, that something like the the North Korean Communist Party and the Zimbabwean Zanupf might qualify for inclusion.) I think that for a highly charged topic like that much more direct and unambiguous criteria are necessary (e.g. parties that actually identify themselves as following fascist or Nazi ideology or being sympathetic to it). Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as AfD is not the place for articles in need of some editorial tidying. Ford MF (talk) 18:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my problem. It's not a question of editorial cleanupk, it's a matter of the article's structure. My problem is that it would require epic levels of near-constant overwatch in order to keep these lists from becoming persistent violations of core policies (specifically the WP:NPOV policy). The concept is structured so poorly that it's a walking, talking invitation to POV violations. A "List of All Reasons To Believe Republicans Are Evil" would have the same issues. RayAYang (talk) 20:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the time the article's existed, I don't think that's been the case; it's pretty well patrolled. Besides, Plenty of other pages (Gary Glitter, for one) are even more "magnets" for BLP violations. --Stlemur (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep This is the real world that WP reflects and fascism is real. Does the list need improvement? Of course, most WP articles need such. So work on it. Hmains (talk) 05:00, 5 August 2008 (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.