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. Wifione ^Message 06:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creeping 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)

"Creeping fascism" is not notable in its own right; it's just used occasionally as a label - in a different context each time. In other words, it's another Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group. Content is inherently non-neutral because it just collects together different instances where political ranters have labelled different things as "creeping fascism"; most of the article concerns one youtube rant about the American government. We could google up somebody saying that "global warming hysteria" is creeping fascism, but that doesn't mean we need an article which says so. bobrayner (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - POV essay about a neologism — more or less an advocacy piece. There are encyclopedic approaches to examine the expansion of wiretapping, email scouring, the multiplication of the number secret intelligence agencies, or the monetization of the political process in modern capitalist societies in historical context. This isn't it. This is clearly a take on the 1960s political epithet "creeping socialism" — about which, it should be noted for what it's worth, there is no WP article. Carrite (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like you're implicitly denying the antecedent with your mention of creeping socialism; maybe I'm misunderstanding? Anyways, the subject is an abstraction which on behalf of it's speakers attempts to draw on the similarities between phenomena not examine or explain them in detail for (our convenience to create) encyclopedic reference. Secobi (talk) 22:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I'm gonna add a new rule to my list that "Whenever you see multiple stacked footnotes in a lead to document a subject phrase as encyclopedic, it probably isn't." Carrite (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good rule. One of these days I'll write a bot to find other cases... bobrayner (talk) 17:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to increase the stack just to organize future citations to flesh out better in body of the article. I'll remove the stack after I find time to improve the article hopefully fast enough to suit bobrayner's standards. I would urge everyone else to please extend more patience towards this article. Secobi (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carrite. In fact delete any article that is based on the presumption that fascism is a pseudonym for authoritarianism rather than a specific ideology. Keresaspa (talk) 18:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So ordered! The Minister of Propaganda will burn all such articles forthwith! 03:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, EEng. Keresaspa (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did. In the last few days the ~~~~ has been acting strange. One time it substituted my username but not the time, and here it added the time but not my username. I presume the WMF elves have noticed this and are working on it. EEng (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, just playing with you :) Keresaspa (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This is an emergent concept. Bobrayner is using a false attribution and a continuum fallacy in order to further his false dilemma of 'improve it according to how I want it or stop editing' and escape all dialogue regarding the particulars of the content or anyone's editing. What started out as a back & forth over a redirection and ignored recommendations for creating a WP:RFD has in an instant been brought here for discussion without there being any changes in the content whilst continually with-holding any and all details of the guideline(s) by which he alleges they violate. Secobi (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot say whether the above is an intentional parody of rhetorical drivel. I can only say that I hope it is. EEng (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blinded by italics! 173.175.26.155 (talk) 06:40, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• comment - With regard to what Carrite has said, the article is written with NPOV ("Articles mustn't take sides, but should explain the sides") and being construed as a neologism means it should be categorizated not deleted. Please, quote the instances of POV bias by the editors, if I'm failing to recognize them, so they may be corrected. With regards to Keresaspa, the use of fascism in "creeping fascism" is loosely referencing a set of incremental acquistions of power, legal priviledge, and legal jurisdiction (typically of an ad hoc nature) by those in government or affiliated with government (read corporations: federal, public, private, municiple, etc) as opposed to a static, defined form, state or exact methodology of government. Perhaps the article could be written to better address that upon further review and discourse over the details of the cited material but this is merely an example of one of the many things which should have been brought up for discussion in the article's talk page before coming here. Secobi (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment just above. EEng (talk) 21:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Carrite. Also delete Slowly creeping fascism, Fascism lurking around the corner of your child's school, and Greenish-hued fascism. Drmies (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment All of the articles cited are about a creep towards fascism. None of them define "creeping fascism" as a specific concept but rather simply use creeping as an adjective to describe the onset of what they are seeking to portray as fascism (and which in most cases is "fascism" being used erroneously as a pseudonym for "authoritarianism" but that's a side issue). If the articles cited were all arguing "creeping fascism is a distinct phenomenon that we have identified" I would have voted keep but they none of them do that. They are just talking about fascism that happens to be coming in slowly and could as easily be called crawling fascism or incremental fascism or any other word in the thesaurus. A similar title for some articles does not automatically indicate that a phenomenon is being identified. Keresaspa (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment is much appreciated. The correct usage of the word fascism is a nebulous subject. While I disagree with fascism in the article being equivalent to authoritarianism (this is not about the centralization of power or authority) I can agree with the article lacking an appropriate attempt to disambiguate; however, even if fascism is ultimately, in every way a usage error the subject matter is similar between speakers and authors and that is what matters. Secobi (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I decided to use your idea which I think is a beautiful approach to disambiguate common language among notable sources: I created incremental fascism, increasing fascism, incoming fascism, shift to fascism. That should help to create a widened body to work from which our budding linguists can help address and disambiguate from to create an NPOV if they are genuinely diligent enough to review any and all material. Secobi (talk) 00:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comment is much appreciated. Based on your initial argument the reason for keeping was that the sources all happened to mention the phrase "creeping fascism". So surely all of those redirects are just neologisms created by you? Keresaspa (talk)
• Delete per nom., Carrite & Keresaspa. Fails WP:NEO.--JayJasper (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, as per WP:NAD#Good_definitions, we are dealing with one topic with a plethora of secondary sources. The primary source could be reasonably disputed but Noam Chomsky the linguist, not the political commentator as some might limit him to being, looks to be a good start. Secobi (talk) 00:30, 10 March 2012 (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.