Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Italian Fascism and German Nazism (2nd nomination)

:{{la|Italian Fascism and German Nazism}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Italian_Fascism_and_German_Nazism_(2nd_nomination) Stats])

:({{Find sources|Italian Fascism and German Nazism}})

Comparing two subjects may be the topic of an essay, but not of an encyclopedic article. I propose to incorporate it in WikiBooks (e.g. [https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/European_History/Europe:_1918_to_1945#Fascism_in_Germany_and_Italy here], or start a new one on Variants of Fascism), because it is well-referenced and decently written, or into different Wikipedia articles. But Italian Fascism and German Nazism (the title already shows that it is a comparison of two different subjects) is not a valid lemma in an encyclopedia. --RJFF (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 October 21. Snotbot  t • c »  10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

::As long as someone will take the burden to incorporate the article into WikiBooks (like RJFF (talk) him/herself) it's okay for me.. but otherwise I would suggest to keep the article. For example the Oktoberfest terror attack it's still waiting for translations from the German and French wikipedia articles but it's still incompleted. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:::I will try. Alternatively, it could be merged into the WP article on Fascism in Europe. It might be an adequate place to discuss the differences of the two most notable national variants of fascism in Europe. --RJFF (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

::::KEEP. Sorry, but merging with the WP article Fascism in Europe wasn't what we were talking about. A comparison article between Nazism and Fascim IMHO it's okay and should stay at this point. There are much less encyclopedic articles that are still in WP and also because we are at the 2nd nomination for deletion the article should stay. Sorry. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::You are right. Incorporating the article in Wikibooks is the better idea than merging with Fascism in Europe. I will do the former and hope that this may justify the deletion of the article from Wikipedia. Fascism in Europe could then link to the corresponding parts of WikiBooks. Btw, pointing to other unencyclopedic articles does not justify keeping more unencyclopedic articles (compare WP:Other stuff exists). --RJFF (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

---

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete as an original essay. Merge appropriate material. Red fascism is a similar essay comparing apples to oranges and describing how they are both fruits. Carrite (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Delete. This is an essay, not an article. It is rife with original research. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 23:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Merge in Fascism in Europe, preserving sourced information (Changed !vote after TFD noticed it is a fork --Cyclopia^talk 22:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC) ) The relationship/comparison between Italian Fascism and German Nazism is by all means a notable topic -the coverage in WP:RS is huge, and the article has plenty of them. There are even whole books on this subject: see [http://books.google.com/books?id=UB3S7g1p6UYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fascism+nazism+relationships&ei=mDOPULPmIY7mUOSogeAJ&hl=it&cd=4#v=onepage&q=fascism%20nazism%20relationships&f=false this], [http://books.google.com/books?id=aJvzjv12CkcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=fascism+nazism+relationships&lr=&ei=pjOPUOHmBILOULDjgbgB&hl=it&cd=13#v=onepage&q=fascism%20nazism%20relationships&f=false this] or (in Italian) [http://books.google.com/books?id=lCpDAQAAIAAJ&q=fascismo+nazismo+differenze&dq=fascismo+nazismo+differenze&hl=it&sa=X&ei=sjSPUOLvGJK40QGQs4AQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA this]. If the article intermingles authors' opinions/OR then we could purge it of such stuff, but this is no reason to delete an article on an obviously notable topic. --Cyclopia^talk 02:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

::Lacking notability was not the reason to nominate this article for deletion. Unfortunately it seems that you have not read my rationale. I know that it is a notable topic - for an essay, or even a book; but not for an encyclopedia article. Therefore I have already proposed to move the relevant and well-sourced material to WikiBooks. --RJFF (talk) 18:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

:::Lacking notability was not the reason to nominate this article for deletion. - Problem is, lacking notability is almost the only reason to nominate an article for deletion on WP. If a topic is notable, then it is presumed to warrant an article, generally speaking. You're basically admitting you nominated this article for deletion for no meaningful reason. There is no "better suited for a book" deletion rationale in our policy, AFAIK. --Cyclopia^talk 20:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

• Delete This is original research. The article has sections for different policies then outlines both Fascist and Nazi approaches, rather than use sources that compare the two ideologies. It POV therefore because it explains what the writer wants to compare rather than explain how sources compare the two. Also, it is a POV fork of Fascism in Europe, which was originally called "Italian Fascism and German Nazism", and survived AfD before being transferred. TFD (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::The fact it's a fork can surely change my mind, but I am unsure of the POV pushed in the article. Can you clarify? To me, it looks like there could be stuff to merge from there in the Fascism in Europe article. --Cyclopia^talk 20:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::See for example Italian Fascism and German Nazism#Positions on race 2 It begins by saying, without providing a source, "A major source of contention between the Nazis and the Italian Fascists was the Nazis' emphasis on a Nordic ideal of the Aryan race, and the historic antagonisms between German and Italian cultures. It then provides pictures of examples of 4 sub-types of the "Caucasian race", presumably selected by the editor. It then outlines how Germans and Italians, not necessarily nazis or fascists, viewed themselves and each other. It then provides a subsection about how the Fascists initially treated the Jews with "tolerance". None of this is sourced to comparative studies.

:::The POV aspect is that descriptions of both are presented side by side, leading the reader to the conclusion that Fascism was not as evil as Nazism. While that may be a rational conclusion, we should have sources that make that point so that we can see whether it is perceived wisdom. (Although I imagine that is a general assumption.)

:::The original article also provides a comparison in Fascism in Europe#Racism, and just like the fork, it has sections comparing foreign affairs and explaining how Nazis and Fascists viewed each other. Despite the title, it covers the same ground.

:::TFD (talk) 22:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

::::I understand both articles cover the same ground. I also agree with the assessment of the pictures. For the rest, I see what you mean -I understand sourcing more strictly focused on comparative sources would be vastly better. However 1) I don't see critical POV issues with the article: that kind of assessment it's basically common knowledge to whoever has read about the topic (and it is usually made in RS) -if anything, I'd call it more of a technical synthesis issue. 2) some of the sources look indeed comparative from the title -see ref.52 and following, "Koshua D. Zimmerman. Jews in Italy under Fascist and Nazi rule, 1922-1945. New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 2005.", about Fascist vs Nazist treatment of Jews you referred to. Unfortunately I have no access to them to make sure that the article coverage follows them, but I'd assume good faith on this, unless reasons are given to not to. --Cyclopia^talk 22:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

:::::It is probably not productive to get into discussions of why the article may be POV, just that the structure is open to POV. The editors have selected their own categories to compare and have selected the descriptions for each rather than first determining what comparisons experts make. My general impression is that it overemphasizes their differences over their similarites, devoting far more space to differences and disputes between their leaders and very little space to their similarities. That they are more different than the same is a minority viewpoint. TFD (talk) 23:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

::::::Agree with everything except with That they are more different than the same is a minority viewpoint. - it's more nuanced and complex than that. But yeah, it's true that the way it is written may be "open to POV" -still this is a matter of content discussion. I feel there's lots of material to merge there. --Cyclopia^talk 14:10, 2 November 2012 (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.