Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Left-wing fascism (3rd nomination)
Source: 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 keep. Courcelles 22:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Left-wing fascism
AfDs for this article:
- Left-wing fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not meet Wikipedia:NOTE. Unlike Islamofascism, there is barely any discussion of "Left-wing fascism" in academia and is used by only a few notable people, one of which is fringe. LittleJerry (talk) 03:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There seems to be plenty of discussion of "left-wing fascism" and that includes academic imprints such as the OUP: Left‐Wing Fascism’ in Theory and Practice. Warden (talk) 18:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- keep — the term is used widely if not frequently, and by quite notable writers. the article is more than mere lexicography. also, one should also search on the german linksfaschismus for a more complete picture. we know the role that untranslated german phrases play in the academic weltanschauung. here's žižek using the term right here, and if it's good enough for žižek, it's good enough for wp, nicht war? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To avoid misunderstanding, Žižek has explained that he used the term in an ironic sense, referring to the use by Habermas, when earlier he had written about unspecified "bleeding-heart liberals" who supposedly might accuse him of Linksfaschismus. So it's not as if the term has his approval. --Lambiam 20:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oh my, i wasn't asserting žižek's approval. my point, perhaps not made as clearly as it might have been, is that it's used, so people ought to be able to look it up. is there some reason why ironically used terms oughtn't to have articles? it seems to me that ironical uses should be included in the article, and that if concepts have entered the discourse to the point where they're not just being used, but being used ironically, then a fortiori they ought to have articles. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I wrote the above I just wanted to spare readers a possible misunderstanding, but I must say that I find this argument weak. Many eminent writers have used the term "historical context". But that doesn't make this an encyclopedic, notable topic. What is needed is that writers have not only used the term, but have written about the term or the concept named by that term. --Lambiam 21:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How many times do we have to repeat this? This article has been repeatedly rejected for deletion. This term is frequently used in sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- Well, it starts with the first bad "keep" call. Non-notable neologism and POV oxymoron were the common on-point opinions there. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention the small detail that after the first bad close, the second AfD closed "no consensus," not keep. Quoting Soman from that debate: "article deals solely with a pejorative, which is generally a bad article subject basis for wikipedia. That said, there has been leftwing (in a relative sense that is, just like there was a Right Opposition in the communist movement) tendencies inside the fascist movement. That would be an interesting subject, but I'm not sure 'leftwing fascism' is the apt name for such an article (also, National Syndicalism, Strasserism, National Bolshevism, etc. largely covers this field)." Care to comment on the content fork aspect? Carrite (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that (socialist tendencies within the fascist movement) is the topic of the article "'Left‐Wing Fascism' in Theory and Practice: The Case of the British Union of Fascists" referred to above by Warden. (It is not an OUP imprint, but an article that appeared in the OUP journal Twentieth Century British History.) So the term has been used in that sense, totally different from what we have here, which kind of undermines the Colonel's "Keep" argument. What about moving the current article to Linksfaschismus, leaving the term "Left-wing fascism" for a dab page? --Lambiam 08:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to mention the small detail that after the first bad close, the second AfD closed "no consensus," not keep. Quoting Soman from that debate: "article deals solely with a pejorative, which is generally a bad article subject basis for wikipedia. That said, there has been leftwing (in a relative sense that is, just like there was a Right Opposition in the communist movement) tendencies inside the fascist movement. That would be an interesting subject, but I'm not sure 'leftwing fascism' is the apt name for such an article (also, National Syndicalism, Strasserism, National Bolshevism, etc. largely covers this field)." Care to comment on the content fork aspect? Carrite (talk) 23:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it starts with the first bad "keep" call. Non-notable neologism and POV oxymoron were the common on-point opinions there. Carrite (talk) 23:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How many times do we have to repeat this? This article has been repeatedly rejected for deletion. This term is frequently used in sources that Wikipedia deems reliable. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 21:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- When I wrote the above I just wanted to spare readers a possible misunderstanding, but I must say that I find this argument weak. Many eminent writers have used the term "historical context". But that doesn't make this an encyclopedic, notable topic. What is needed is that writers have not only used the term, but have written about the term or the concept named by that term. --Lambiam 21:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- oh my, i wasn't asserting žižek's approval. my point, perhaps not made as clearly as it might have been, is that it's used, so people ought to be able to look it up. is there some reason why ironically used terms oughtn't to have articles? it seems to me that ironical uses should be included in the article, and that if concepts have entered the discourse to the point where they're not just being used, but being used ironically, then a fortiori they ought to have articles. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per Warden, good article. --S Larctia (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Unencyclopedic pejorative. Carrite (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - A concept that has been used to the point of being historic. Northamerica1000 (talk) 13:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Article is notable and well-sourced. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - complete bollocks, but easily passes WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 8 September 2011 (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.