Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2005 May 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 10

[edit]


  • NOTE: This page is now active as a tennis player bio. I wish to nominate the current page (too) for deletion as the player in question fails WP:Notability to tennis players (has not competed in a main draw ATP Tour match, has no Challenger titles, has not played in Davis Cup, not notable for his junior play Mayumashu (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is Wow. We have entire textbooks on this single condition.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE The article should be redirected and absorbed into Neofascism and religion. Weirdoactor 13:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the following argument from my post on the discussion page, with minor changes/updates:
1) The term gets a huge number of search engine hits (see: link to search for term "Christian Fascists" as an exact match)
2) The Christian Right Wing has fascist elements (e.g., the Ku Klux Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, Jerry Falwell, and Pat Robertson). These are not fascists in the epithet use of the word; one definition of fascist is "a person who is dictatorial or has extreme right-wing views". As fascism is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism" and more the point of this discussion, “a political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government”, and the examples mentioned before are fascists by that definition (as judged by their actions and statements), and all are Christians, the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet.
3) Epithet vs. Legitimate Term: One example of a word that is both legitimate and an epithet: liberal. Conservatives use this word as an epithet to inspire their base. Should we delete the liberal article as well? How about redneck, which is also both a legitimate term (often used by those it describes in a positive way) and an epithet? And let us not forget nigger, which possibly the gravest insult a white person can call a black person…but a word used over and over again in rap music, performed mostly by blacks. It’s both a legitimate term, and an epithet; should we delete that article as well?
4) If the term is legitimate, and not solely an epithet, the article is legitimate. If the article is legitimate, it should not be deleted. At most, it might be redirected/absorbed into Neofascism and religion, Neo-Fascism or Clerical Fascism (or all three), a move I would agree with more than a pure deletion. Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now Weirdo has switching from arguing that this article should stay because he thinks I'm religious to that it should stay because there are insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists although, like has been made clear earlier, they are clearly not fascists. Itake 18:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Let's be clear and honest, Itake: it is YOU who have switched arguments, from "POV" to "the term is misleading". I've never made the argument that the article should stay because a) I think you are religious (your obvious bias is my issue, not your religion), or b) "insecure people out there to call people like Pat Robertson fascists" (sic) (this is, ironically, a POV, yours to be exact, and it merely proves my point of bias). My argument for keeping the article is very clearly stated above. Should you need assistance understanding my argument, feel free to ask me specific questions regarding the points I've made, or answer those points. And please refrain from freestyle interpretation of my statements to fit your agenda. Thanks! Weirdoactor 18:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honesty? I don't think non-religious people like you know the meaning of that term. Did I ever say the sole reason for its deletion was that the term is misleading? No, I didn't think so either. You, you have no points. Its just one long rant on that the article should stay because some people use the term "Christian fascist" to describe people like Pat Robertson. Itake 19:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just going to be insulting and dishonest to make your points; I won't waste my time trying to have a civilized discussion with you. If you delete the page, I'll create a new Christian fascism page, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Have a nice day! Weirdoactor 19:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone needs to get a life...Itake 20:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you do! I hope you get one. You'll get bored with stalking me me before I get bored with counter-stalking you; so you'll need a hobby. May I suggest treating your Borderline personality disorder, or perhaps apostasy? Weirdoactor 20:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire page is one big POV. Itake 21:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE, this is just a tit-for-tat response to islamofascism see here: link to google images of salutes BTW I'm not christian
You're making an argument for the deletion of Christian fascism, not Islamofascism. Your cookie-cutter approach to that argument combined with your ability to Google images isn't terribly convincing. Look, I can Google too: link to google images of Christian Fascists; link to even MORE google images to even more Christian Fascists Weirdoactor 13:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


STRONG KEEP. These sorts of wackos need a page of their own, lest they get mixed into movements like the Christian right. CyberAnth 17:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEPThis topic gets more relevant by the day.
STRONG KEEP Some sort of redirect would be alright, as long as the phrase "Christian fascism" is intact. This moniker has been used in some media. The phrase is accurate in describing certain dominionists, reconstructionists, and others deeply entrenched in the far religious right.