Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fascists

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of fascists

List of fascists (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

As "fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV. In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP, especially given that the entire list is unsourced. Perhaps this could be replaced by a List of historical fascists, as there were political parties and people 60+ years ago who did call themselves fascist. As it is, this list merely invites the constant adding of right wing politicians and others who various editors don't like. Xyzzyplugh 00:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Maybe it should be renamed to self identified fascists, but that's not the concern in an AfD. Similarly, there may be some entries which should not be there, but that's not a reason for deletion. And people do use the term to identify themselves, just like they do use the term "neo-Nazi". -Amarkov moo! 00:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The word "fascist", applied strictly, can only be applied to members of the Italian party founded by Benito Mussolini. If it is to be applied to any right-wing politician, from the Nazis down (or up) then the list is so hopelessly incomplete as to be totally non-encyclopedic. Why not add the name of every member of the NSDAP?--Anthony.bradbury 00:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Any reason not to use the definition in fascism? -Amarkov moo! 00:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, the fact that it's a pejorative term. We don't have List of idiots or List of bastards, despite the fact that we could find sources on low intelligence or unmarried parents. --Xyzzyplugh 00:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
        • If there are a sizable number of people who honestly self-identify as an idiot or a bastard, and they are notable in relation to those things, then we should have those lists. Now, I don't think that this list, or any ideological list for that matter, should be applied to someone who does not self-identify as a fascist/libertarian/conservative/whatever. But it doesn't, so I see no reason to delete it. -Amarkov moo! 00:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and Redirect to list of historical (self-proclaimed) fascists per nom. This could be a useful page, but it has problems. As can be seen from the edit history, it's controversial. Fascism is pejorative in many cases and could be used for a sneaky Wiki-attack. Also, the definition of "fascist" on this page is too loose - if the subjects were self-proclaimed fascists, that would be fine, but some of those on the list could equally well be said to be far right-wing or Neo-Nazi; that's not the same as fascism. As an aside, the page is also a target for vandals. EliminatorJR Talk 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Redirect Self-indentified facists. --TeckWiz ParlateContribs@ 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete List of communists, democrats, etc... I'm not sure of a policy ot cite, but I think nothing good can come of this article. NPOV does seem applicable enough. Paging Senator McCarthy... --Auto(talk / contribs) 01:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep since the reasons for deletion are flawed in a few respects.
    • "As "fascist" is a pejorative term..." is an incorrect statement because the term is used simply as a descriptive term to describe a political ideology. There is an article on fascism used the way you consider it at Fascist (epithet) but the list explicitly does not use that definition. Certainly, the original PNF were called, and called themselves, fascist but no one would say it is being used perjoratively. Any one adding someone who is not obviously a "fascist" ideologically (with references) is immediately reverted as the article's history shows.
    • "...that no one uses to identify themselves, this list violates WP:NPOV." this statement is incorrect since some people do refer to themselves as fascist or a related ideology (falange, national socialist, etc.). In fact, there was a recent Deletion review to allow the Category of Fascist Wikipedians to be re-created [1] for those who do self-identify sa a fascist.
    • "In addition, some of the people listed here are still living, which violates WP:BLP". How so? If someone added George W. Bush to the list (and it stayed on it for more than a minute before being reverted) it would violate it but what about Pino Rauti? Some of the neo-Nazi's on the list could be argued I suppose but that is a separate issue that does not warrant deletion of the entire list especially since most people on the list are dead.
    • "...especially given that the entire list is unsourced." Actually, everyone of those figures does (well, should) have sources for them being a fascist in their own articles. To have the sources for everyone on the list page would clutter it up and is completely unnecessary. Do we have references for everything added to List of Atari 7800 games on the page with the list? No, and, therefore, we do the same with this list. - DNewhall 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • The introduction to the article claims not to use the term as an epithet, but the actual items on the list shows that it is being used that way. The problem stems from the way the word "fascist" is used in multiple ways, which could include anyone from WWII Italian fascists to modern Neo-Nazis and white supremacists to simply conservative right wing politicians. Don Black (nationalist) and David Duke, for example. White supremacists and nationalists would generally claim not to be fascist, and being a white supremacist or nationalist does not imply one believes in dictatorship or totalitarianism. A few hundred years ago, most of the white population of the US held beliefs such that we would now consider them to be white supremacists; were they all fascists? The term "fascist" is too broad and too pejorative to make a List of fascists keepable. (And, not that this is reason to delete or keep, but your claims that any items on the list which aren't sourced are immediately removed is clearly not true, there are about 50 redlinks in the list, where are our sources on these? And most of the people on the list which we do have articles on, which I checked, I didn't see justification for calling them fascist) --Xyzzyplugh 03:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not due to the nom's reasoning, but because the subject of the list is a bit broad. Instead, a category would be better suited.--TBCΦtalk? 01:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While I can see the ideal usefulness of this list, I'm concerned that out of eight people who I picked off the list (most at random), none had the work "fascist" in their Wikipedia entries. In other words, if they were so self-identified, why isn't this mentioned in their articles? (And some articles were quite long with extensive sources.) Yes, they all shared some characteristics of fascist philosophy but, as far as I could see, fascist was being applied to them externally and as an epithet for their Neo-Nazi/authoritarian/anti-Semitic/racist/etc. beliefs. I'm not one to defend such people but if I got a 0 for 8 result, I have little trust in this list. Pigmandialogue 02:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly a notable topic worthy of keeping.--Sefringle 03:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • No one has questioned whether it was notable, the criticism of it is that it's not NPOV. "Notability" is not our only requirement for keeping an article. --Xyzzyplugh 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete With a term that could be used pejoratively in the name of the article, we should be insisting on attribution with footnotes because the potential for libeling someone in an ugly way is enormous here, yet there is not one single footnote or reference of any kind in the article. Also, David Duke is a Hitler-loving racist according to the Wikipedia article on him, but I think it's inaccurate to call him a fascist in the terms of the Fascism article that was mentioned earlier in this discussion, because I don't think he adheres to all of the "integral" tenets mentioned in that definition (I don't think he's in "opposition to laissez-faire capitalism"). It does nobody any good to be inaccurate in identifying extremists. What we need are separate lists, with each item footnoted, and with a definition of the label at the top, including what criteria put people on the list or leave others off of it. Delete List of Fascists, then let someone, if they want, start the whole thing over along the lines I described, because I think the current list is useless and unsalvageable. We should have a List of racial supremicists, List of Nazis, and List of Ku Klux Klan members to cover the extremists who don't fit in the Fascists list. Noroton 04:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. A similar article, List of communists, seems to have been nominated as well, for those who are interested.--TBCΦtalk? 06:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep although many of the entries on the list should probably be taken away. The nominator's statement, "..."fascist" is a pejorative term that no one uses to identify themselves" is in part incorrect. That the term a perjorative term today is true, but Benito Mussolini for instance did refer to himself as a "fascist". Self-identification is a valid and verifiable criterion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep While it needs some work and careful watching, I think that it is a worthy subject for Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RaiderAspect (talk • contribs) 10:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete, unmaintainable and unqualified criteria for inclusion AlfPhotoman 12:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete List is indescriminate waste of server space, and furthermore, can an admin block the making of any "List Of (insert contraversial political/religious/racial term here)" page? I'm getting a little tired of seeing one up for deletion every day.--Lostcause365 14:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete - Violation of WP:NPOV adn WP:BLP...--Cometstyles 15:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Editing can deal with any who do not belong or whose fascism is not attested by sources satisfying [[WP:ATT] in the primary article on the person. I see a number of well substantiated fascists such as Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Mussolini on the list, and there is good reason for historical information to maintain such a list. Any editor can remove any unsupported entry (such as a prank listing of someone's high school principle or parent). Edison 16:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep If some entry in the list is questionable, someone can put a citation needed tag or still better, provide a reference or remove the entry. But having some questionable entries does not mean the list has to be deleted. Self-identification could be used as a criterion. And the scope is not as broad as List of communists.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - If only because "no one" includes the members of Movimento Fascismo e Libertà and the American Fascist Party Lars T. 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • This is off topic, but - americanfascistparty.com, no alexa ranking. fascismoeliberta.info, alexa ranking 3,809,294. So these parties may possibly have membership in the double digits. --Xyzzyplugh 12:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If for no other reason than how do you define membership of such a list? Comparison with the list of communists is invalid because there is a widespread network of communist parties. Last I looked there wasn't a similar network of fascist parties. I also disagree with the claim that term isn't perjorative --Spartaz Humbug! 21:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete If this is kept, I'm going to create List of socalists, List of pilots, List of people who have seen Star Wars more than 100 times, and List of meat eaters. (I'm kidding.) --PatrickD 21:11, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not useful, really, and can be controversial. People may try this [2], and even if that is kept a watch on, I don't see a real reason for this page. Just gives everyone more work. The Behnam 21:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete POV magnet. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: the criteria who's included here are obviously impossible to enforce. Czechoslovakia includes 4 names of which only Gajda fits here (leader of party named fascist, supporter of corporativism). Moravec was an opportune propagandist, Frank and Henlein mere nationalists and separationalists. Stříbrný, Kramář, Domin - leaders of fascists parties and groups are missing. The list looks degenerated into "list of every bad guy". Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Clearly notable.--Sefringle 04:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Notability has... what to do with it? Nobody said that fascism wasn't notable. -Amarkov moo! 04:37, 18 March 2007 (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.