Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pan Aryanism

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 of the debate was DELETE. -Doc ^ask? 18:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Pan Aryanism

Lengthy POV screed about white nationalism. Maybe there's a worthwhile article that can be written in a NPOV about "pan aryanism", but this article isn't it. → Ξxtreme Unction {yak yak yak ł blah blah blah} 21:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete POV Essay.--Isotope23 21:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete soapbox, pov, not an faq, etc. Youngamerican 21:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

redirect per DanMS below. I could see someone searching the phrase "Pan Arianism" in an attempt to locate information contained in the White nationalism article. I would, however, recommend to the closing admin to go ahead and delete the article for the reasons I previously gave and, furthermore, to prevent bad-faith reverts to this article. That would make it easy for a sysop to speedy this article if it ever reappears in the article namespace. Youngamerican 03:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per above; looks like a FAQ copied from a message board. Tom Harrison ^(talk) 21:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete only 500 google results.jucifer 21:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Youngamerican. Durova 21:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The attempt to impugn my motives changes my vote to strong delete. This is a POV rant, poorly written, absent of links or references, and unworthy of scholarly attention. A genuine NPOV article on the subject might be worth including if the writers demonstrated notability, which they do not. Durova 00:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete POV, faq, not encyclopedia format, numerous other problems. If rewritten in a non-POV way, it might be salvagable, though not necessarily. I'm not going to do it. Vonspringer 22:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.126.251 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 11 November 2005

• Redirect to White nationalism. I read both this article and the White nationalism article. Pan Aryanism is well covered in the White nationalism article. This separate article on Pan Aryanism adds nothing (in many paragraphs) that is not essentially covered in the White nationalism article. I think a redirect is appropriate due to the fact that Pan Aryanism is mentioned in the White nationalism article. ♠DanMS 01:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

How can there be"scholarly references" when PA is a brand new ideaology? If any of you think your such high powered scholars, please register on our site and level your criticisms. http://www.panf.info. I promise that unlike this place, you can speak freely as long as you do not disrespect White females,use slurs against White nationalities,or advocate non defensive violence agaist an actual real-world person.

PA is bearly mentioned in that article. It does not set forth the actual standards we use to identify who is White. It makes a complete mistatement that implies that we think that all people from Iran, Syria Lebannon and Turkey are White, than says we dont consider ANYONE from the Southern ME White. That is untrue. Yes most people in those first countries are White, and most from the latter are not, but there are exceptions in both instances Why is it that you are fearful of a comprehensive article on PA? Moreover, kindly specify what is "poorly written" about it? Finally, why should my questioning of your motives effect your vote. Dont you think that is childish? If You want the FAQ format changed, I can do that, though I dont see your point You act as if the typical article in Wik. is drafted like something out of Harvard Law Review. Please try to be more realistic- Diabloblanco, Chairman PANF

• Response to the above. The problem with this article is that it reads like a screed from the organization’s informational pamphlet and it is written is such a manner as to try to persuade readers to the organizaton’s point of view. In the Wikipedia that is what is called “POV” (point of view) and that is not acceptable for an encyclopedia. An article on an organization must objectively describe the organization with no attempt at persuasion. Outside criticism of the organization should be included for balanced information. Your entire article could probably be scrubbed and reduced to about two paragraphs if written objectively. The entire FAQ section should be removed or reduced to about one paragraph. You must include sources of information and external links where possible. The article needs to be “wikified”—written in proper Wikipedia page format. The spelling, spacing, and sentence formatting need to be cleaned up and corrected. More information about the organization—or movement, or whatever it is—needs to be given. For example: How long has the organization existed? Who founded it, where, and when? How many members does it have? What notable persons are members? What kinds of activities has it participated in? What kinds of outreach does it have? What is the source of funding? What kinds of media attention has it received? Given these stated corrections, the article MIGHT be worth keeping as an objective description of the organization.

And finally: (1) Do NOT edit this AFD page other than adding your own comments, and (2) sign your entries with four tildes (~~~~) after your entry. Unsigned entries have little credibility on these pages. ♠DanMS 20:56, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete — WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". — RJH 18:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per RJH. -- SoothingR^(pour) 20:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you simply speak of changing the tenses from "we" and fitting the format to conform to your standards, that can certainly be done I can also include the sites URL,as well as URLS from "Anti PA" sources,both inside and outside of WN, together with sources (Such as the works of Dr. Coon as well as sites such as DODONA and Racial Reality (the latter BTW is non-Racist)from which PS racial theory derives However, I do not know how to write an article that might not influence someones opinion, and with all respexct, neither do you or anybody else The fact that you percieve the article as promotional may simply be due to the fact that nearly all writing about White nationaism is done in a fashion that denigrates it and without the slightest pretense of objectivity Given this, an actually neutral description may seem "promotional by comaprison. Finally, I HAVE NOT edited this page, merely added comments as per your rules67.81.126.251 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Diabloblanco, Chairman, PANF67.81.126.251 02:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: The parts about religion, and where you state "race should come first and you should support the self determination and survivaL of all Whites no matter where they live." aren't just POV, they're plain and out discrimination. Also, it is ok when articles influence someone's opinion, it is however not ok when an article on Wikipedia clearly states the opinion as being the objective truth. Wikipedia is here to educate people, not to brainwash them. -- SoothingR^(pour) 07:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename it Pan-Aryan National Front. Since http://www.panf.info is the only site that follows the "Pan Aryanism" politics, I suggest we include the "Pan Aryan" info in a article that talks about the Pan-Aryan National Front, since we already have articles about other White nationalist discussion boards such as Stormfront and Vanguard News Network. Diabloblanco, you said that the statements about Pan Arayanism in the White nationalism article is incorrect, if you find something wrong with the statement why don't you edit and correct the misstatement? Afterall, anybody can edit Wikipedia. Regards, --Gramaic | Talk 05:50, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. FAQ with pov content. *drew 11:58, 16 November 2005 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.