Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Deal and economic fascism

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. Johnleemk | Talk 11:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive POV fork. In addition to being original research, it violates the WP:NPOV principle that disproportionate amounts of space should not be given to fringe viewpoints. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a notable issue and popular position among free market economists, historians, and others. It's hardly "fringe." Even if it were, it's still notable and therefore needs a place where it can be discussed. There is little or no "original research" there. Most everything is sourced. RJII 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: RJII is the article's creator. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Creator of article RJII has a long history of disruptive behaviour on Wikipedia and POV forks is one of his tactics (see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point). It's getting pretty clear that he is also probably a racist entryist from stormfront.org. he seems to have a interest in creating articles like these and then abuses and provocates Wikipedians. Calling state intervention and the new deal part of a practice called 'economic fascism' is simply inaccurate, POV and not taken seriously by most historians or economists. This is about the 7th highly contentious article of his put up for deletion. On his talkpage I have asked him about his edits being those of an Agent provocateur but has refused to confirm or deny or comment on my questions. -- max rspct leave a message 22:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Yes it probably is about the 7th article of mine put up for deletion. The previous was economic fascism and the vote was overwhelmingly to keep. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think every article I've created has survived a deletion vote. So, I must be doing something valuable. If this one doesn't survive, oh well; you can't win 'em all. But, I'm hopeful others will see the value in the existence of this article. RJII 04:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from your paranoia about me being a secret agent, on what basis are you calling me a racist? How dare you accuse me of being a white nationalist from stormfront.org. It was me that even created the black anarchism article, in order to give black anarchists a voice. RJII 14:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • So you asked RJII if he was still beating his wife and he refused to answer? Color me surprised. There's no rule against editors having a POV, and if your only basis for calling RJII a racist is his libertarian viewpoint then you should be ashamed. Gazpacho 00:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks for that. Sounds like he's off his meds. RJII 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into New Deal. This is sufficiently founded to keep it from being POV-pushing or OR, but it is a division of the article according to POV. I've trimmed redundant material from New Deal and placed both the Keynesian and the libertarian view under a single heading. Gazpacho 00:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would support a merge, but it's inevitable that the article would be chopped down and information would be lost. I think it needs its own article so the topic can really be explored in depth. Was the New Deal really modeled on Mussolini's system? Let's explore it. If not, great. I don't understand what the POV'ers are worried about --are they afraid that it actually was modeled on fascism and don't want that revealed? If so, that's a horrible anti-intellectual reason to oppose the article. Don't fear the truth. RJII 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could support a subsequent split to "Interpretation of the New Deal." For now, merge is a simpler vote.
• Weak merge, leaning toward delete. Durova 01:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (back) into New Deal - the title of this fork is inherently POV. CDC (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. Stifle 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV fork. Nothing here that couldn't go into New Deal Pilatus 19:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You can't fit it in the New Deal article. That's why I made a seperate article. It would make the New Deal article too lengthy and be out of proportion with the rest of that article. It needs a seperate article. RJII 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article on the New Deal has got a section "Interpretation of the New Deal" and another section "Legacies of the New Deal". There is more than enough space in the main article to discuss its policies and its historical context, impact and legacy. No need to start another article for what is a fringe interpretation of history. 82.26.161.248 22:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • All that information won't fit. It would be too large for the article. And, the view in not "fringe." It's mainstream.Most economists and historians know that the New Deal was modeled on, or at least strongly resembles, Mussolini's system. RJII 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This POV fork is an extension of the continued content dispute at Economics of fascism. There is nothing here that would not be better said there or in New Deal. The Land 15:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV fork, POV title, fringe view being given undue attention. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With prejudice. The page is nothing but WP:POINT. 172 23:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Comparison of the proposed New Deal with actually existing forms of economic planning, including the Soviet Union, was a commonplace of the early thirties. It did not, except among the kooks and hysterics, imply any non-economic similarity; and it should be remembered that Mussolini, in particular, was being mildly praised even by Winston Churchill. The attribution to Hayek is unsourced, and unlikely. (If it is an interpretation of Road to Serfdom, it is original research.) Most of the rest of the aources are either out-of-context partisan comments, or obscure rightwing flakes. A PoV screed. There may be something to be said on this topic, but this is not it -therefore no vote yet. Septentrionalis 04:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to New Deal or keep, cleanup, add references and expand. If length of article is problem, then move this and sections from New Deal to under a neutral title like Critisism of New Deal. jni 10:51, 17 January 2006 (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.