Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofascism

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. JForget 01:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biofascism

POV, seems like an attempt to do "guilt by association" and possibly POV pushing by defining a blanket term, especially since the editor that created the article simultaneously broadened the definition of biologism in that article. An oline search indicates that "biofascism" has been used as a derogatory term, but under this article's definition it's more of a neologism. References are not up to RS standard for an issue such as this. (BTW, the article was a PROD supportedx2 before it was deprodded. Tomas e (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism, and a barely coherent entry. WTF is "totalitarian organic politics"? (The reference for "totalitarian organic politics" is a letter to a media arts organization. Huh?). I see some Google hits, but most of them are misnomers or equally unclear neologisms. There is a taint of po-mo academia in this entry, this is a crowd extremely loose with neologisms. Say what you mean, people. Hairhorn (talk) 22:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is frankly silly. There may be some small number of trendy academics employing the term "biofascism," but it is still a ludicrous term. To suggest that discrimination on the basis of biological characteristics is innate to fascism, and innately fascistic in and of itself (which seems to be the entire point of this brief, and very poorly sourced article) is ahistorical in the extreme. America practiced an extensive regime of White supremacy as recently as, say, 1962, but was the USA really a (bio)fascist state in '62? Come on! KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as poorly-referenced neologism. Articles on neologisms have to meet a higher standard of notability - they have to show that the word in question is notable and widely used enough to deserve its own article. Here, I don't think that's the case - while the term 'biofascism' has been thrown around a bit as a political epithet, it doesn't seem to have any clear meaning in particular. Perhaps this could be merged or redirected somewhere, but it's not even clear where it should be merged to! (We do have an article on ecofascism, but that one is rather better referenced than this one, and anyway it doesn't seem to be quite the same concept.) Robofish (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Non-notable neologism. Google returns a total of 770 hits, mainly blogs. I can't find much in the way of reliable sourcing using the term. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --- neologism.Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neologism used to push a POV. --Loremaster (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2009 (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.