Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US support for the Nazism

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, with the article renamed. I've renamed the page to Nazism in the United States for the time being, as that had most support here, but further discussions can come to a more binding consensus on that. Sam Walton (talk) 14:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US support for the Nazism

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough information for a stand-alone article, and not really enough to merge with anything. Nothing notable in this article. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, but rename to something more grammatical, perhaps History of Nazism in the United States? The article's creator just started today, and there is an under construction tag. There's certainly enough material for an article to fill in the gaps not covered by the Friends of New Germany, the German American Bund and the American Nazi Party. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We cover American Nazis in Hitler's time in German American Bund, and Nazi wannabes since WWII in Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Clarityfiend. The rename to something like History of Nazism in the United States is need. Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 12:46, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename -- The present title suggests US government support. Support for the Nazism in the United States might be nearer the mark. WE only have a stub at present, making it difficult to judge its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC) (Sorry! I am not going to waste my time translating an article that will be delete.)Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Editors arguing keep need to explain why this material is not better covered in existing articles on: German American Bund, and Neo-Nazism.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, at most, move to userspace. Maybe the gaps described by Clarityfiend could make an article, but this isn't it. I think I would vote delete or redirect on the Portuguese article on which this one is meant to be based. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Snmurphy: which Portuguese article?E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pt:Apoio dos Estados Unidos ao nazismo is, I think, the article to which Dr. Loo (whose userpage suggests is Brazillian) is referring. Sorry, I should have included the link in my previous message, but I didn't look up how to do interlanguage links. Also, sorry for the slow response, you misspelled my user name, so I didn't get the ping. Smmurphy^(Talk) 13:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They have thought of moving the article?

201.17.139.2 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States. No reason to make the title any more specific than that, since that will cover both the history of Nazism in the U.S. and modern Nazi supporters in the U.S. In response to E.M.Gregory's remark, those other two articles don't quite cover the same topic. German American Bund is a historical organization that supported the Nazis in the late 30s, but that doesn't mean that it was the sole group supporting the Nazis. For example, Charles Lindburgh was, at least at one time, a Nazi supporter, but he had little to do with the German American Bund. Neo-Nazism is not a U.S. specific article and thus should maintain a global focus. agtx 14:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename subject is notable but Nazism in the United States is a more accurate title.LM2000 (talk) 22:04, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States. It's a worthwhile subject that can be an umbrella article to the topics discussed in Friends of New Germany, the German American Bund and the American Nazi Party. By looking at the article names alone I would not have known that "German American Bund" was Nazism related. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with @Agtx:, German American Bund and Neo-Nazism do not cover influence, activities, social development or have a sole focus into US-Nazi ideas and relations during the entire period (20s to present). Both articles should be used as based for the Nazism in the United States artice.Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 02:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename this article has potential. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a heads up, there is a recently created article Support for Nazis in the USA, which appears to be adapted from the Portuguese Wikipedia article Apoio de norte-americanos ao nazismo. This topic is likely notable, but I'm not sure if it has been covered in any existing Nazism articles. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That article (Support for Nazis in the USA) was written after a request was made to about 30 editors by an ip, see here. In my opinion, both articles (Support for Nazis in the USA and US support for the Nazism) are meant to be translations of the same article from the Portuguese and should be merged (and, as I !voted earlier, deleted). Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in favor of Support for Nazis in the USA, which has the potential to be a well-sourced and interesting article once properly translated and cleaned up. ubiquity (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "Support for..." is the right approach; that would make the article somewhat one-sided. I.e.: I'm sure there was opposition too. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from the issues with the title (as mentioned by K.e.coffman), Support for Nazis in the USA seems to be a horrible machine translation which is literally incomprehensible. It is best to TNT that and build this version from a clean slate. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as AfD hinges on notability and potential to expand, not current state of articles. Subsequent discussions can determine the appropriate title and redirects. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now this has popped up: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Support for Nazis in the USA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Nazism in the United States The subject is notable and the renamed title would be a much better description. It has a good potential to be an umbrella article which talks not only about the support but also about the domestic reactions to it. As for Support for Nazis in the USA, the article is a mess (translation issues) and it should be deleted or redirect to this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Fork per E.M. Gregory above. We've already got this material covered under two encyclopedic pieces. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Something could be done along the lines of this article. 187.20.84.92 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion?177.182.250.13 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bad copy of a bad article. Is this the usual standard at the pt.wiki? Anmccaff (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, but this doesn't seem to be a valid reason for deletion. The question is whether the subject is notable, not whether the article is any good. agtx 14:27, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable enough that it is already covered, as mentioned above more than once. This is a recent article that duplicates, essentially, existing work; that's grounds for speedy deletion, never mind this. It's also a near a near literal copy of another xlation of the same article, one or the other definitely needs to go. Anmccaff (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that one must be deleted...but, why this one? Dr. Loo^{Talk to me} 03:07, 11 October 2016 (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.