Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americofascism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – ABCD 00:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Americofascism

Here we go again with another brand of fascism! We already got a quite considerable collection of A/Z-fascisms. I don't doubt that we will be having a big list. Please, I suggest to delete all X-rated fascism articles or at least merge them into one general article so people can add aliens-fascims entries if possible. Svest 01:13, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

Keep and Rename it American fascism. I voted first to delete this crap as for all of the X-fascisms that are not based on academic basis and probably used as personal arguments. But I am changing my vote now in order to be fair to myself and not to be a stupid.

I changed my vote according to the basis on what Islamofascism was kept. Islamofascism was kept because of the arguement that the term is being used widely (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism). It was kept also because of the famous google hits (the same applies to American fascism but not to Americofascism).

Some helpful facts:

--->Islamofascism gives you 601 nail bombs. (I mean hits) -taking google shadows into account

--->"American fascism" gives you 445 BGM-109. (I mean the same as above and this time please use quotes when searching).

Does this sound fair or stupid? Please correct me if I am wrong. Let's googlewhack. Cheers and respect for all votes below -Svest 22:25, May 1, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

It sounds misleading to me. Even taking "shadows" into account, (and I'm not exactly sure what those are) Islamofascism gets 610 (not 601) Google hits, and 997 Yahoo hits. On Google "Islamic fascism" gets another 521, "Islamist fascism" another 296, and "Muslim fascism" another 129, for a total of 1556 (though there will no doubt be some overlap). All of these pages are referring to the same topic. On the other hand, "American fascism"'s 436 (not 445) hits refer to all sorts of things; movements in the 30s, modern day Republicans, Lyndon Larouche, even the Green Party! Anyway, if you want to write a history of Fascist movements in the U.S., feel free, but Americofascism is simply a WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

• delete, how dull --Doc Glasgow 01:52, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Anti-American sentiment. Gazpacho 01:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Delete, disruptive intent has become clear. Gazpacho 22:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete this shit. Do not redirect. Neutrality^talk 02:28, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete As I have placed the POV, you can see my reasoning.
• Delete. Do not redirect. Quale 04:45, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologism, POV. Firebug 04:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this but we should have an article on the ongoing discussion, which is real, whether Bush's America is fascist.Grace Note 04:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • It might be reasonable to have an article on criticisms of America regarding accusations of fascism (although all such representations would have to be sourced, and this would have to be watched very carefully for signs of POV-pushing), but this article isn't it. Firebug 04:53, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Gracenote, why dont you make such a article.Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. Give me a chance. I have to dab American football in about a thousand articles first and then write Brisbane's suburbia. An article about accusations about the USA can keep, so far as I'm concerned. If it's still interesting a year or two down the track, that'd be soon enough. I don't think encyclopaedias necessarily have to keep up with the pace!Grace Note 03:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV. Zzyzx11 | Talk 06:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete--and I strongly disagree with universal merging. if someone can cite prominent usages of a term, that should count towards notability. Meelar (talk) 08:12, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)

  Well, it shows that people have used the term, not that it actually means anything. A series of articles on Uses of the term "Islamofascism"/"Judeofascism"/"Christofascism"/"Littlegreenmanofascism" would be properly sourced to such uses, but articles about phenomena of those names? I have real doubts that the latter are justified just because the names exist. Grace Note 10:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • If the term is used in a notable fashion it deserves a WP entry. It has yet to be shown that Judeofascism or Americofascism are at all notable outside the minds of people trying WP:POINT. Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what a "notable fashion" is. Are insults notable because of who uses them or why they used them? Maybe. But writing about the use of an insult is, as I said, different from writing about the insult itself. If I note that X calls Y a Zhead, does that merit an article on Zhead? I think the article is then actually about the use of Zhead as an insult, not Zhead itself.Grace Note 03:50, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Made up just to prove a point RE: Islamofascism TigerShark 10:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Islamoneologism. Klonimus 20:38, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep: If Islamofascism is allowed to exist, I will vote keep for this. Delete Islamofascism first, then we can delete Americofascism. We need to be a NPOV encyclopedia, and I don't think it is consistent to allow an article such as "islamofascism" to exist while deleting one such as "Americofascism". - Stancel 17:29 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: But one is a notable political epithet used by numerous notable people, and the other is a seldom-used (never by anyone important) neologism. Meelar (talk) 03:41, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless we include Beninofascism or Tajikofascism as well. —Seselwa 21:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POINT ..... no really! WP:POINT how many more of these are there going to be? Dalf | Talk 00:34, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. WP:POINT. Rhobite 03:15, May 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until islamofascism and judeofascism are deleted, then delete. If the mentioned two articles, or one of them, stays, then keep. DeirYassin 22:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Will the create-an-article-about-whatever-fascist-o-fascists ever be stopped? --Mrfixter 23:41, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This rubbish isn't even worthy of a redirect. Tomer ^TALK 22:38, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete FroggyMoore 01:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and slap around whoever put this up in the first place. 3 non-Wikipedia Google hits. Pure wankery. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:52, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with DeirYassin on principle. JamesBurns 01:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a combination neologism and WP:POINT behavior. Tobycat 02:12, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect Move to American fascism. Wikipedia is the place where the term goes when it gets legs, not where it goes to grow them. -- BDAbramson ^thimk 06:05, 2005 May 5 (UTC)
• Delete. Pure neologism and WP:POINT. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism, WP:POINT. Binadot 19:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no way that this merits an article on Wikipedia. At most, it should be mentioned in a more general article (perhaps fascism?). M412k 19:38, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
• Move to American fascism, or better (for naming purposes), Fascism in the United States and redirect. Alternatively, place any useful content in fascism as M412k suggested. Looking at the article, however, I doubt that it does have any useful content. It is two paragraphs in length, providing an inadequate number of examples or evidence. The subject of Fascism in the United States could be addressed, either in its own article or as part of the fascism article, but not in the manner presented on this page. Ben Babcock 23:32, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Do not put votes in this section

Per the introduction at the top, I think an article on "The (mis)use of the word Fascism" or perhaps "The use of the word Fascism in political epiteths/political discorse" or some other title. Most of these articles are not even for valid neologisms they are just people disrupting Wikipedia to try and make a point. Dalf | Talk 00:39, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Gosh, the indignation expressed above — yet Islamofascism was kept. Motes and beams. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I voted to re-direct Islamofascism since I don't think the article can be keep strictly to the use of the term as an insult. But, Islamofacism is the article people are trying to make a point about anyway. The general consensus is that its a bad point, by virtue of Islamofascism being a pejorative term that people are likely to encounter and look up, while the others are just madeupwords. In any event my indignation was aimed at the fact that the point was made properly in the VfD there when several people commented we were inviting people to create americanofascism or hindufascism or or or ..... Actually going and creating one of the articles to prove the point was counter productive but realtivly understandable. Creating a second article with even less merit than the first (and I mean this in terms of probability of encountering the term not the supposed phenomena) after the fist was delete. At this point even assuming good faith it is starting too look like it is just ment to disruption of the wiki or as some kind of tantrum. Dalf | Talk 20:06, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

And you vote delete? Is this Wikipedia?!!!

I just wonder how hypocrite some of wikipedians are! WP:POV is the only reason they got to delete this article. I haven't seen this reason in Islamofascism at all. Are you familiar with AMAZON.COM?! ([1])! Folks, there is no single book named after Islamofascism; not even the term is used in any book in this world! Not even one about the term Islamic fascism ([2])!!! More than a dozen about American Fascism ([3]). For google analysis, please refer to my vote on top of this page. Cheers and respect -- Svest 03:25, May 5, 2005 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up}

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.