Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Since a large amount of people have expressed concerns about whether this article meets Wikipedia's NPOV policy, I will boldly start an AfD discussion to see what the community thinks, since the talk page discussions have gotten nowhere. I have also seen opinions that this is a content fork of Trumpism, which is valid. I will clarify that this is on behalf of several other editors who expressed concerns, as their opinions do also matter. I personally have no opinion on this. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and United States of America. SMG _chat 18:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Speedy Delete. This article is an attack page by its nature, leveraging opinion and speculation. There is no neutral version to revert to. It was created recently before the election, to sway opinion (common sense).

  It violates NPOV by its origin and nature. As a thought experiment, imagine if someone created a page titled "Kamala Harris and non-black roots" or "Kamala Harris and lack of cases tried as DA" and by its origin it is the same level of non-neutrality.

  To the people saying "The page doesn't... even say that Trump is a fascist." The evidence against this is LITERALLY in the title. That's what the word 'and' means. That is a disingenuous perspective. Or "has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection". This is the same gotcha as a journalist on camera asking a candidate "any comment on allegations of drug use, wife abuse, etc etc". That is an attack. Stono rebellion (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  it is a shame for wikipedia to loose neutrality, the page must be deleted Fasil H. (talk) 08:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - I am not American but I follow American politics from my native Africa and what I see is that, over time, Wikipedia has become a strong bastion of the Western far left. This kind of article is just a direct attack on a right-wing politician. An article that takes up all the rhetoric of the far-left. And as luck would have it, this article was written the same day THE GUARDIAN published an article "Is Donald Trump a fascist?".

I don't know if you realize it, but Wikipedia has lost a lot of its credibility in the world outside of the small woke spheres (and I deliberately use this word to attract your attention) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reda Amani (talk • contribs) 14:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep - has a section dedicated to those disputing the connection between Trump and fascism that addresses NPOV concerns. (Also clearly meets GNG, has 100+ WP:RS) Superb Owl (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Speedy keep as page creator – The page doesn't present any original opinion or even say that Trump is a fascist. It's just a page about the very widespread comparisons, which as a subject absolutely pass WP:GNG. It's not POV-pushing to have an article about a political and academic debate without taking any sides in it. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong keep: doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy, but from my comment on the RM:

  If this shifts to a merge discussion, I would strong oppose that; the {{refideas}} at the top of this page shows a wealth of academic and book sources comparing Trump's views to fascism. charlotte ^👸♥ 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

  charlotte ^👸♥ 18:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – A few paragraphs are arguably SYNTH violations and some information in the CSECTION should be integrated into the rest of the article, but overall there are more than enough sources for this to pass GNG. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Speedy keep It maintains NPOV as well as an article of this type can feasibly do. Also does not have a deficit of reliable sources. However, if the consensus ends up to be to delete this article, IMO an AFD discussion should be started on Comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany due to it being a very similar case.Wildfireupdateman (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

yes 203.30.3.51 (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - The article pretty clearly does not have a NPOV. The 'Criticism' section, by comparison, is quite sparse and measured. Jehorn (talk) 19:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - The fact exists that Trump has been specifically called a fascist by members of his cabinet, political experts and scholars, and also that his supporters have engaged in discussion about the accuracy, fairness, or property of that qualification. The subject is evidently polemic, but it exists beyond mere political propaganda. Maykiwi (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just because previous cabinet members of his cabinet have said something does not make it true. Steven Britton (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  It wasn't a situation like a strong disagreement aka a shouting match in which everybody called each other names. There are thoughtful assessments, even with points of comparison, made post-facto, years later. Also, not just "disgruntled employees" have made the comparison. There are academic studies on the subject. Maykiwi (talk) 22:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia doesn't care about the truth as to whether or not Trump is a fascist (as though that's something that can be objectively true or false either way), what matters is whether the connection has been discussed in enough reliable sources to warrant an article. The Midnite Wolf (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The article readily meets notability requirements and has a wealth of RS to back up its discussion. The article has recently seen a large influx in users attempting to delete it in part because of an article in a right-wing website accusing it of liberal bias that Elon Musk then retweeted. BootsED (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Clearly not WP:NPOV | Also having clearly contentious articles popping up in the moments immediately prior to an election does not maintain neutrality nor does it stride towards the goals Wikipedia--it does not need to be first, and should take a neutral approach to topics after they have been established. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: article is thoroughly sourced. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 20:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - This article clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep, the article does NOT violate WP:NPOV, it isn't as if the article states Trump is facist, the article is about a very common opinion people hold about Trump. Comparisons between the president and fascism are quite commonplace in America, meaning this is almost certainly notable. -Samoht27 (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep- Trump has been labeled fascist before because he meets the dictionary's definition.

Simple - if he doesn't want to be labeled a fascist (or a criminal), don't act like a fascist or become a criminal. 2601:44:180:BC30:6DAD:B71C:196E:2C13 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That is opinion, not fact. It should be up to the reader to decide. Wikipedia should not be a place to lead people to any one conclusion either way. That is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. Steven Britton (talk) 22:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

The article shouldn't be about why Trump might be a fascist. The intent of the article is to provide unbiased documentation on the frequently made comparison -Samoht27 (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

"Everyone who disagrees with me is a fascist" Gremlin742 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• It's a discussion of Trump and the "concepts" that swarm around him. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I personally am not a fan of the tone of a LOT of articles that concern contemporary US politics and topics such as the alt-right, but this article reads surprisingly temperate compared to many others. I also think the recent direct comparison by Kamala Harris of Trump to Hitler are the tipping point which justify having some kind of article on these comparisons. As already mentioned above, all sources that are opinion pieces should definitely be removed, though. There is plenty of better sources than that available to prove relevance of the topic. 2003:CD:EF0D:4800:ACD0:3E1F:71CE:6E6E (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Trumpism: this is a WP:POVFORK and a WP:COATRACK that fails WP:CFORK. I realize that this article's existence has been the subject of a bunch of angry tweets, many of them from people who are very stupid. It is altogether good and proper for us to treasure our independence, and to laugh in the face of those who tell us the truth is offensive. However, at some point I think we ought to ask ourselves if the article should actually exist, whether its presence accomplishes anything, and whether it conforms to our own rules.

Wikipedia's habit of reflecting what mainstream sources choose to cover means that it has an unhealthy fixation on Donald Trump. We have Donald Trump and handshakes, we have Donald Trump and golf, we have probably a hundred separate articles about every single aspect of the guy and his life and his views and everything about him. It is extremely unusual, even for someone who is the President of the United States -- we do not have this level of obsessive coverage of Obama or Bush or Biden. I get that he is a very visible public figure, and also a very silly guy, and he does a lot of notable stuff, but Wikipedia:Not every single thing Donald Trump does deserves an article. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. I cannot wait until the year 2029 when I get to fire up the hedge trimmers and merge a bunch of flash-in-the-pan news cycle articles about Donald Trump's opinions on Tabasco sauce and nobody will follow me around to gripe about how this means I am obviously a paid shill for the Republicans and/or Democrats and/or Whigs and/or pushing an agenda for Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, Big Diode and Big Capacitor.

See, okay, there is this very long and convoluted argument for how this article doesn't call him a fascist, it's just a list of every time anybody has ever called him a fascist, which we are assembling in a lovingly made gallery of quotes in an encyclopedia article, which inherently suggests that these utterances are worth paying attention to and that they indicate something useful about the state of reality, also for some reason we do not really spend much time explaining that they are opinions and not factual statements -- okay. I get it, whatever. This will win arguments on Wikipedia. I don't think it is going to convince anybody outside Wikipedia, by which I mean the readers of our project, by whom I mean the only actual people who matter when we make decisions about content.

I don't think we need to have a whole article calling him a dick. I realize he is a dick, but that's not the point -- it is not really necessary to write a gigantic blow-by-blow of every single time somebody has called him one. Before someone gets a bunch of WP:UPPERCASE on my shoe, please note, I am not talking about what our policies technically permit us to do -- I am talking about what actually makes sense to do, as grown adults who engage positively with the world, and who write an encyclopedia in the context of all in which we live and what came before us. jp×g🗯️ 21:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. Check the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and follow the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Are you really just posting the same reply to different comments without reading them? jp×g🗯️ 23:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Please don’t WP:BLUDGEON delete votes by copy-and-pasting the same text whenever someone votes for a merge or delete. SMG _chat 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Written like someone who was paid by Big Capacitor, possibly even Big Diode... very suspicious Artem P75 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete

the article is clearly made to attack Trump, it does not directly call Trump a fascist but it very clearly backs up one side whilst actively trying to discredit the other, very bias article please remove ASAP Gremlin742 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Issues such as these don't require deletion, you shouldn't bring a gun if you need a hammer. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

It should at least be heavily rewritten so it is not bias propaganda against one side, but if that doesn't happen then it should be deleted Gremlin742 (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: The reason this article exists is because lots of independent sources have been able to draw valid and logical between Trump's actions and those of historic fascists, and because recording such information in Wikipedia is valuable and constructive. Comparisons between Kamala Harris and communism doesn't exist (yet) because Kamala's actions and beliefs don't make a strong case for legitimate comparison to historic communists like Stalin. "The left are communists" is a tried and true attack used by the right for many years, and the same can be said with the left and "the right are fascists" (although not as commonly used).

As for WP:NPOV, the article could definitely use a good touch-up, but it is practically impossible to compare X to Y without readers noticing a visible or perceived bias towards whether the comparison is appropriate, warranted, fair, neutral, etc. Neutrality certainly isn't helped by the fact that "fascist" and "communist" have been adopted into the repertoire of insults for a lot of people, but I believe the article is worth keeping. Sirocco745 (talk) 02:55, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - The article is more a propaganda piece for the USA election than a WP article. It does not have a NPOV. Most (majority) of the sources are from strongly biased organizations: The definition of neutrality should take the population into account, rather than the left leaning legacy media. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep

Labeling Donald Trump as a "fascist" is legitimate.

Generally, fascism is a far-right authoritarian ideology that promotes;

1. Racial and ethnic nationalism
2. Centralization of power
3. Suppression of dissent, and often the identification of enemies within society to rally the populace.

So we continue to debate whether Trump fits this label due to his authoritarian rhetoric, attacks on public institutions, divisive rhetoric against perceived "enemies," and his apparent disregard for established norms.

However, while Trump has exhibited some behaviors associated with authoritarianism (e.g., undermining the press, rejecting election results), he has not instituted a fully centralized, authoritarian state with absolute power. So that his actions fall short of full-blown fascism.

QalasQalas (talk) 10:20, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Aside from this appearing to be AI generated (according to 10 different detectors), I don't see the point you were attempting to make here. Everyone could spend an eternity comparing person X to fascism, communism or any other ideology

Make no mistake, I also believe Donald Trump is very comparable to a fascist. But we cannot undermine WP:NPOV just because we have the impression he is comparable to one. Millions disagree, making it a view at the end of the day, not a factual statement. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 10:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete

1. This piece is an attack page. It is highly suspicious that it has surfaced now, less than a week before the 2024 election, and is highly biased against Trump to begin with.
   
2. The subject matter is highly controversial and inflammatory. Throwing terms like "Fascist" and "Nazi" around during an election campaign can even be considered to be dangerous. Donald Trump has been targeted in two assassination attempts, and these can be, in part, attributed to the labels given him by his political opponents.
3. Accusations of "fascism" and "nazi" can be construed as Libel. The terms are so charged with meaning that they tend to "other" the person at which they're targeted. They are similar to labeling someone a "pedophile" or as a litany of any other number of heinous criminals.
4. Appearance of bias. Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is intended to be neutral and non-biased. If this article is kept, or worse, speedily kept, then it will end up broadcasting to the world that the consensus of Wikipedia's community as a whole is very much against Trump and his supporters' side of the political aisle. This is not what Wikipedia was created to do. If Wikipedia even has an appearance of bias, then that will damage Wikipedia even more than it has been damaged over the last few years to begin with.
5. NPOV Violation. The article is worded to give an impression of neutrality, however the "criticisms of the comparison" section is far smaller and has far fewer citations than the other sections of the article. Far more time has clearly been spent on the arguments in favour of the comparison than against. This is not neutral.
   
   
6. Lack of Reliable Sources:
   

• Many of the citations used in the article are attributed to opinion pieces. Regardless of whether the source uses the term, "analysis", "opinion", "editorial" or other words, an opinion is just that - an opinion. Just because person X says "Donald Trump is a fascist" doesn't make it so. It also fails to make it so when person X writes an opinion piece analyzing Trump's actions themselves and claims Trump to be a fascist. Whether Trump is a fascist or not should not be left for Wikipedia's editors to determine, but for the individual voters themselves.
  
• The poll cited by ABC news in the Lede is also highly unreliable, particularly since ABC is under extreme scrutiny for bias in terms of how they conducted themselves in the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump earlier in the campaign. When you go through to the actual information of the poll itself, you can see that the data is highly massaged and twisted to produce the misleading results published on the wikipedia page. 49% of Americans do NOT think "Trump is a fascist", for example, only 44% think Trump is a facist. 5% think BOTH Harris AND Trump are fascists, however this key detail is left out, as is the percentage of Americans who think Kamala Harris is a fascist.

To summarize: This article is not written with a neutral point of view, even when it contains a small section of "criticisms" of the point of view, is poorly timed in concert with the upcoming election, may put an individual or individuals in physical danger, and thus needs to be speedily deleted.Steven Britton (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Personal attacks and other off-topic talk messages

@Steven Britton: Having they/them pronouns does not constitute a conflict of interest. jlwoodwa (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Yes, please remove that personal attack, those things aren't welcome here. SMG chat 20:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC) It isn't a personal attack. I worded it very carefully to avoid an appearance of it being a personal attack. The use of the pronouns can, and does, in this politically-charged environment, bring the author's own motivations into question. I am sure that they are a perfectly decent and upstanding person. I am also sure they have a set of opinions that may, or may not, be in sync with the rest of us. That being said, it is very reasonable and objectively true that a specific set of opinions of a certain community is very strongly linked to the use of pronouns. Which is the basis behind the need to call their motivations into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Hey, I use gender-neutral pronouns online (despite my name). Does that make me biased? No! SMG chat 20:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC) If you want to focus on that one particular point to invalidate every other point I made, I guess that's up to you. The fact remains, there's a perceived link between use of pronouns and political bias. I have never said there actually was a bias, just that there is an appearance of one. Steven Britton (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC) PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY RESPONSES. CENSORSHIP HAS NO PLACE HERE. I HAVE REMOVED THE POINT THAT YOU DID NOT LIKE - AS ACCURATE AS IT WAS TO BEGIN WITH. THE OTHER ARGUMENTS STAND FOR THEMSELVES. Just because you don't "like" or "agree" with something I said in terms of linking item A to ideology B does not invalidate the point that there does exist a link, and that link, even if not true in a specific case, can and does create an appearance of bias and call motivation into question. Steven Britton (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Accusing someone of bias because of their gender identity will not help you. BootsED (talk) 20:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Failing to adhere to Wikipedia's personal attack policy will get you blocked, no matter the context. SMG chat 20:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC) Play nice, we don't care how people identify here. Bias can be discussed without the nasty words. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC) I am attempting to play nice. I removed this section because it distracts from the rest of this discussion, and I have also removed the part of my above arguments for “speedy delete” that was contentious. The others restored it for some reason. I have my own suspicions, but you will have to ask them why they decided to restore it. Steven Britton (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2024 (UTC) You also did not see my original statement, I suspect. I think it’s noteworthy that a discussion was opened on the admin page about “personal attacks” (which did not occur, and certainly not intended) as well. The motivation behind that decision is something I am also wondering about. In the spirit of good faith, I leave it to them to share their reasoning - or not, as they see fit. Steven Britton (talk) 21:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC) (Personal attack removed) Steven Britton (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - Per above (not including the discussion right above this), very much violates WP:NPOV. Changing the article name to Comparisons between Donald Trump and fascism does help, but it's still not good. - RockinJack18 20:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Is AfD the place to debate neutrality of an article? It's sourced mostly to RS... There's a "story" here, not sure why this needs to be deleted. Oaktree b (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It was at the quasi-request of another editor, who is not extended-confirmed. I'm now regretting this due to their above comments, but withdrawing it would just make it worse. SMG _chat 20:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it should be withdrawn, as it's still an important discussion to have, even if the original suggestion for nomination may have been in bad faith. - RockinJack18 20:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Okay this is getting ridiculous. I went in with the intention to removed the statement, but you took it upon yourself to alter my statements, replacing them with “personal attack removed”, and, then, when I removed everything associated with the comment you didn’t like, you went and filed a complaint over on the admin page, and you are STILL going on about it here. Steven Britton (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy keep (with exceptions) Keep (with exceptions) - As the person who moved the article to its current title, I see the value in an article such as this one. However, I do recognize that some work needs to be done in order to bring it to an acceptable quality. Notably: 1) Opinion pieces (though very few in number relative to the total number citations) should be removed. 2) The title should be changed to a better suited title (see ongoing RMV), 3) Additional citations in regards to criticism of the topic of this article should be added. I will reiterate what I stated in the RMV. This page has some notable aspects, but I can also see an argument for a merge into the main politics of DT article. I currently do not support a merge (I am indifferent to it). I do not support draftifying it until the election is over, as that would set a precedent for political articles. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll quickly note that I'm not sure if a speedy keep is warranted here, since 3 (not including above's fiasco) people have voted to delete it. I'll step back now. :) SMG _chat 20:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, updated — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 20:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

It could have been, as the nomination did not actually present an argument in favor of deletion and during the first hour of the debate neither did anyone else. I think we're snowball territory now though, which is essentially the same. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I also agree the amount of opinion or "newsy" articles need to be trimmed back, there are plenty of peer reviewed studies, I'm sure even more of them not used here. Also, a lot of peer reviewed studies are not inline citations but merely "further reading". Except maybe for since mid 2024, studies generally take a long time to compile and many former administration officials calling him fascist is obviously noteworthy enough on its own. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - Sure, its controversial and needs some work, but it includes a fair amount of relevant information and is well sourced. Just because there is not as much content (or sources?) against the idea does not prove NPOV. I see no reason to delete. - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep I don't think its NPOV to cover the range of topic-expert opinion on this, Wikipedia isn't endorsing any particular view merely by mentioning that such views exist. Wikipedia isn't censored, I don't think we should avoid coverage because it offends certain people. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 22:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - The fact that this page has even been permitted on Wikipedia in the first place is exactly the reason people mock this encyclopedia and it has a reputation of being grossly unreliable and biased. It is baffling that anyone with any impartial frame of mind whatsoever would view a page with content such as this acceptable on Wikipedia, or in case, to contain information befitting an encyclopedia at all. I can see that people have claimed that this article is not biased and is not an opinion piece but is simply a comparison - again, any person with any impartiality about them at all can clearly see this is not the case. And looking through such a lens so distorted that one could not view this as biased, or an opinion, and that it really is just a comparison - in what world is such a comparison necessary to be in an encyclopedia? Wikipedia should present information about a person, unbiased, and free from opinion, leaving it then up to the reader to decide an opinion for themselves. We do not need agenda pushing content, whether it is for, or against.

Artem P75 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Greetings. You might be interested in checking the subject 'Trump fascism' in Google Scholar, and following the suggestions made by the search engine. There are studies on the subject since 2017, at least. Maykiwi (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Copied from my comment above:

So would it then be fair then to create an article called "Comparison between the LGBTQI+ community and child grooming" ? As this is quite a widespread comparison and does not present any original opinion pieces? I'm sure one could find plenty of "WP:RS" on the matter, and it could then easily be "balanced" by including a section showing dissent on the topic.Just to be clear, I do not in any way hold this opinion at all and think it is a gross opinion to hold. I am simply using it as an example of why articles of this nature, especially when using your argument, should not be given any ground to stand on. It is a dangerous flood gate to open when we start allowing political beliefs and ideologies on Wikipedia. Artem P75 (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

That article already exists at LGBTQ grooming conspiracy theory, which details the history of the comparison and instances of it being made up to the present day. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow. The longer I am on this platform the more I lose hope in it. It seems as though anything these days can qualify as an article. What an absolute shame. Artem P75 (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

And that's the thing, not everything is about bias, this topic has been widely reported on by numerous reliable sources, as has the LGBTQ grooming nonsense. Reflecting that rfeporting does not make WP biased. The timing is also not a mystery as General Kelly just spoke to the New York Times at length about this exact subject last week. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I dont really have an issue with the timing, I really doubt that a Wikipedia page popping up will sway the election.

_

I understand that Wikipedia is reflecting reporting here, as in the article in the LGBTQI+ article (which I will now stop referring to so as to not give such an article any more notoriety) I just do not believe that such articles which are largely conspiracy theories have a place on what should be a place for the community to find reliable, unbiased information - even at the cost of limiting what topics are covered, not every topic needs to be covered.

_

It is very well known that media outlets push political narratives, even the most reliable of news outlets will more often than not take some form of political standing, what is happening here is no different. A news outlet that supports trump will say he is not a fascist and that the idea is preposterous, an outlet that does not support him will say the opposite - both are very likely incentivized to push such narratives (which I guess you could argue is a conspiracy theory in of itself) - but in any-case when it comes to matters like this there is very very rarely impartiality, if there was then all news outlets would be giving the same information and it is for this reason, on topics like this, I do not believe that news outlets should be considered WP:RS, because it basically just comes down to confirmation bias and running with whatever story supports your claims

_

Really, the claim is very far-reaching and clearly a trigger word to defame the man's character. To say either presidential candidates are fascists or communists etc. is completely out of touch with what those words truly mean and what people who have lived in leaderships of that nature have experienced Artem P75 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

You do make a good point that it is pretty usual for candidates to end up being called fascists by their political opposition, and I would agree with having the opinion columns from news outlets be removed. While that is more of a content issue at first, if the article gets substantially shorter once they are gone, I might support merging it to a wider article. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@Artem P75 You've already wrote this delete comment once above, it'd be best to retract 1 as to keep the discussion as concise as possible. Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, I will remove the initial comment Artem P75 (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I think they were referring to the duplicate !vote near the top... - Adolphus79 (talk) 23:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again, I think I have now removed all of my duplicate comments Artem P75 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• WP:SNOW keep This is clearly a very notable topic that has been reported on by innumerable reliable sources. If the article is biased or should be at another title, those are fixable problems not requiring deletion. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Speedy Delete - The article does not have a NPOV. Most of the sources are also strongly biased organizations. Ferdilouw (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Keep (with some exceptions) The page is well documented, researched, and uses high level secondary sources. Second, a good portion of the page is evidence of Trumps fascist tendences from those who have worked with President Trump at the highest levels of the US government. Third, a significant portion of the page discusses controversial language and actions attributed to President Trump. There's no way around this, the former president wanted to shoot protesters and kill members of his cabinet. The one section that may need deletion or some revision is the second on the boarder (which I think was already removed).

Rock & roll is not dead (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Ferdilouw (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete: This is an article which could set the trend with how we deal with controversial figures. Let's not get embroiled in non-WP:NPOV political views that only really serve to inflame certain groups. We have plenty of coverage on the Donald Trump article already of his authoritarian tendencies.

Aside from that, there is the test of time. In 20 years this article will likely look very dated and out of place on Wikipedia. We don't have articles discussing the various twists and turns of Elon Musk for this reason. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 23:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• • That can be brought up in AfD in 2044 I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep. Clearly meets WP:GNG as a standalone topic, and has been the subject of repeated political commentary. The article isn't (and shouldn't be) "Trump is a fascist, here's why", but discusses the history of the comparison between them, which is an encyclopedic thing to do. On the other hand, given the amount of similar articles about Trump and Foo that could be written, I could understand merging it to a wider article. But the amount of (current and potential) sources indicates that a merge might not allow us to go as in-depth into the topic as the sources allow us to. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:25, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Per the article you referred me to above, although I disagree in that I believe it (and articles of this nature in general) should be deleted I do agree that:

_

If it is to remain, it should be from a more neutral lens and explore the history of the matter, how the conspiracy arose, why it has gained traction and remained as, what seems to be, in my opinion, a default opinion statement to use when there is nothing else to argue and just immediately resort to strong character defamation by comparing the man to hitler or a fascist. As it stands this article is just a poorly written opinion piece - perhaps if it were better written, more balanced, and provided the reader with the history of the matter and the understanding that "there is a conspiracy theory that trump is a fascist" rather then here is a obviously biased article comparing trump to fascism, "heres why trump is a fascist" - it would be more suitable.

_

Again, I propose deletion but do believe you raise a good point should the article remain and feel as though this should be the format for articles of this nature, although in my opinion such articles do not have a place on Wikipedia Artem P75 (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Please strike one of your comments, voting twice can create confusion at the end of a discussion period. SMG _chat 23:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think "conspiracy theory" is a neutral way to put it either, at least it isn't how sources (even those disagreeing with the assessment) seem to call it. But you are right that an article focusing on the history of the comparison and the reasons that led to it would be ideal, although, from my impression, the article mostly does that already. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep notable topic.Andre🚐 00:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge to the article about Donald Trump. We don't have "Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism" or "Comparisons between Putin and fascism" because these people — however close to fascism they are — do not have the same hate fixation by liberal Americans that Trump has. I believe that merging will make the voice of the article sound less like that of an American SJW (social justice warrior) and allow neutral encyclopedic coverage of the topic at hand. Cheers Historyexpert2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Historyexpert2 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Not having articles about Comparisons between Netanyahu and fascism and Comparisons between Putin and facism says nothing about the actual article. The article is written from a neutral point of view, if this article directly called Trump a facist, that would be one thing. This article simply documents a very common comparison made in American politics, and has been made by both the right and the left. It's certainly notable and is needed for a full coverage of contemporary American politics. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Nomination is 100% politically motivated. Great Mercian (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  The nomination wasn’t politically motivated, my reasoning is on behalf of others. I’m a democrat. :) SMG _chat 12:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  Cool. I'm a Labour voter. Great Mercian (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  The point he is putting across is that you're casting WP:ASPERSIONS. o Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify for a week to 10 days, and then reconsider. Surely that would assuage accusations that this page intends to sway votes. Hyperbolick (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong delete Biased articles like these is why many reasonable people hate Wikipedia. Nuke it. Amin (Talk) 07:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep, this seems a widely covered topic in WP:RSs and, I think, the article does a good balancing the major viewpoints in those sources (which is what WP:NPOV actually says to do). You may disagree on that last point, but that is the sort of dispute worked out through normal talk page discussion and not at and AFD (WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP). We are WP:NOTCENSORED for the benefit of a political campaign (or the feelings of Elon Musk). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Many RS, maybe cut down on opinion pieces. Also, move peer reviewed studies from "Further reading" to inline citations. The title is good as it is, "Donald Trump and fascism", which is what it was before, is too vague.</MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• NPOV is not a reason to delete an article unless we are dealing with an attack page or a BLP violation. There's more than enough coverage over the last few years on the matter for it to pass WP:GNG; I don't think that WP:LASTING is in question here either, on the same grounds. While I do agree with JPxG's views above that we have too many articles on Trump that are probably not of lasting significance (the golf article stands out to me, for instance), I disagree that this article falls into the same category. Keep. JavaHurricane 14:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree. NPOV violations can be fixed with through enough editing. -Samoht27 (talk) 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. It may not be an original take, but to reiterate, this is an encyclopedia. We document what is written and spoken in culture as well; this means that this article has a very warranted merit to exist because the word of mouth and political discourse around Donald Trump has heightened towards a discussion about him and fascism. It may have just bounded to the mainstream now, but for the past couple years, this has been happening too. The article has a place here. ~ GoatLordServant^(Talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: Sourced to RS, could perhaps use a re-write, but that's not a reason to delete it. I see no issues with notability nor with the sourcing used. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: If this was an exercise in baseless, political name calling, I would be calling for a speedy deletion. However, the article puts in context many of the things that Trump himself said that he believes, plans to do or has done. The article has been careful not to include many of the superfluous "examples" littered throughout social media, most of which is clearly politically motivated. As a libertarian, I support Trump's right to believe and say what he wants but I also support the author's right to aggregate the numerous, informed examples which support the overall thesis of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skish3 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)— Skish3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - subjective, politicized, unqualified opinionated analysis by political opponents, and inappropriate for an encyclopedia. There's probably more I could add, but not much more than what's already been said about this process. Atsme 💬 📧 19:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article is simply remarking on a well-publicized and non-fringe controversy, which does not come from political operatives but the media itself (and a full half of the American people). I see nothing POV about it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep - The only way to violate WP:NPOV here would be to state bluntly that Trump is (or isn't) a facist. The article is well supported by WP:RS, and a criticism section is included so both POVs are represented.estar8806 (talk) ★ 22:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - The article has WP:RS supporting them, and I don't see any uncivil name-calling or any other bullshit in the article. There is no valid reason to delete the article. If election related articles were speedy deleted for "swinging opinions to a certain side", then Wikipedia wouldn't be able to write a single modern election article. No matter how much there is an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, someone will end up finding a way to criticize it, just like how Wikipedia has long been criticized for bias. This AfD is just stretching unnecessarily to allow room for more ANI threads over personal attacks, and simply is an uphill battle of pushing the snowball up with more ANIs until the snowball melts and it's all over. I really don't like how this AfD is heading to the drama tunnel. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  TL;DR - WP:NPOV issues aren't usually solved by just deleting everything, and I don't see how this article is an attack page or anything. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 01:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)