Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fascism and the rhetoric of unification

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The result was withdrawn.-Wafulz (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fascism and the rhetoric of unification

A brief essay apparently summarizing the views of one researcher on a somewhat inscrutable topic. Noted for its problematic nature some two years ago, but never really fixed.<eleland/talkedits> 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn. The problems appear to be the result of a zealous cleanup effort; the topic itself is notable, and sufficient independent sources exist to show this. The article will of course need to be improved but we don't have a deadline. <eleland/talkedits> 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be non-notable as a topic, but I have a feeling that book these ideas are from is notable. (Too lazy to do the research at the moment, but I'd be surprised someone would write an article like this if it wasn't being taught in a college class somewhere.) Assuming this is true, I would move this article to The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle, which should be framed as an article about the book. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, I just realized all of those citations aren't reprintings, they're just multiple journal articles of the same name. At this point I'll just remain neutral. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sorry, but a nominator should provide some reason to delete the article. "Problematic nature" is not a reason for deletion. "Views of one researcher" is also not a reason. Biophys (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That there are no sources independent of that one researcher is a reason for deletion; WP:NOTE generally prefers multiple sources, and requires sources independent of the subject. <eleland/talkedits> 02:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are six sources in the article written by three different people. Hence it satisfies notability criteria. This is not to say that article is great. It is not, but I just do not see a serious reason for deletion.Biophys (talk) 03:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Girard source has nothing to say on the subject: the book doesn't even contain the words "fasicst" or "fascism". The Wink source does mention fascism twice, but trivially, and with no mention of unification. All the others are by K. Burke. <eleland/talkedits> 02:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but move to The Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle", and rewrite as a proper encyclopedic article on the essay. Right now it has the character of a summary or an essay about the essay. This is an important work by Burke and has been referenced by many other writers. (Calliopejen1 was correct in xer first comment. The title of our article is unique, and not an alternate title to the essay.) --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Discussing only one point of view makes it inherently POV. Beyond that, this subject/theory is not notable (for lack of a better word); this topic would be best treated in the article Fascism as one of several interpretations/opinions about the subject. However, per Dhartung, if the essay itself can be demonstrated to have notability, I wouldn't mind seeing it moved there and discussed as s/he lays out. Dylan (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research from a biased perspective which fails to fully address its subject. A real article on fascist unification rhetoric would be significantly longer, and have more sources. Argyriou (talk) 17:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Perhaps it could be retitled, but this is a very important concept used in rhetorical studies and communication studies of war in academia. Burke's 1939 article on this topic is considered a landmark essay in the field, and the concept as outlined by Burke has been instrumental to many scholars in understanding Hitler specifically or in war more generally. csloat (talk) 20:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the topic or the essay may be notable, but this article fails to prove that. this version of the article may have been worth keeping, except that Cberlet say fit to hack off three-quarters of the article for lack of references, and nobody's bothered doing anything with it since May 2007. The second paragraph is useful, but the article needs a proper introduction, and the first paragraph isn't it. The third paragraph, about "commercial use", is worthless. For that matter, the article about Kevin Burke doesn't mention this essay nor the books it's appeared in. Argyriou (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good argument for fixing the article, not for deletion. And for adding this material to the Burke article. I came upon this article when I was researching Burke; now that it's on my list, I'll certainly try to help improve the situation. I also would agree that it should be renamed to something like Rhetoric of Hitler's "Battle" rather than this title; if it survives deletion that should be the next step. csloat (talk) 07:29, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

evidence

Just for the record, I looked at EBSCOHost's Communication and Mass Media Index. I limited my search only to peer-reviewed articles that cited Burke's essay "The Rhetoric of Hitler's Battle." This limited search still netted 58 peer-reviewed essays (you can find more if you look in other index headings; Burke is often cited in sociology and political science as well as communication scholarship). I include a list of the first ten just so you can get a sense of the breadth of influence this thesis has had. Also, a google scholar search for mention in books finds you more hits.:

"Telling it like it is": Jim Pankiw and Politics of Racism. Rhetor. Journal of the Canadian Society for the Study of Rhetoric, 2007, p1-23, 23p; (AN 27747329)
The Populist Chameleon: The People's Party, Huey Long, George Wallace, and the Populist Argumentative Frame. By: Lee, Michael J.. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Nov2006, Vol. 92 Issue 4, p355-378, 24p; DOI: 10.1080/00335630601080385; (AN 24875979)
To Execute Capital Punishment: The Mortification and Scapegoating of Illinois Governor George Ryan. By: Moore, Mark P.. Western Journal of Communication, Oct2006, Vol. 70 Issue 4, p311-330, 20p; DOI: 10.1080/10570310600992129; (AN 23234017)
Finding Comedy in Theology: A Hopeful Supplement to Kenneth Burke's Logology. By: Maddux, Kristy. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 2006, Vol. 39 Issue 3, p208-232, 25p; (AN 22497430)
GUEST EDITORIAL: A RESPONSE TO PATRICK MOORE'S "QUESTIONING THE MOTIVES OF TECHNICAL COMMUNICATION AND RHETORIC: STEVEN KATZ'S 'ETHIC OF EXPEDIENCY'". By: KATZ, STEVEN B.. Journal of Technical Writing & Communication, 2006, Vol. 36 Issue 1, p1-8, 8p; (AN 20338972)
"YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND": MORAL FRAMING OF THE WAR ON TERRORISM AND THE IRAQ WAR IN THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN. By: Spielvogel, Christian. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Winter2005, Vol. 8 Issue 4, p549-569, 21p; (AN 19628709)
DEMOCRACY, DEMAGOGUERY, AND CRITICAL RHETORIC. By: Roberts-Miller, Patricia. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Fall2005, Vol. 8 Issue 3, p459-476, 18p; (AN 18536135)
The politics of victimage:. By: Blain, Michael. Critical Discourse Studies, Apr2005, Vol. 2 Issue 1, p31-50, 20p; DOI: 10.1080/17405900500052168; (AN 16669758)
Reading the Riot Act: Rhetoric, Psychology, and Counter-Revolutionary Discourse in Shays's Rebellion, 1786–1787. By: Engels, Jeremy. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Feb2005, Vol. 91 Issue 1, p63-88, 26p; DOI: 10.1080/00335630500157532; (AN 17941694)
Theodore Herzl's The Jewish State: Prophetic Rhetoric in the Service of Political Objectives. By: Kiewe, Amos. Journal of Communication & Religion, Sep2003, Vol. 26 Issue 2, p208-239, 32p; (AN 14350131) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commodore Sloat (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (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.