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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Right-wing populism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-neutral fork of Right-wing populism, created by editor site banned in 2018 for pushing an Islamophobic POV. Unnecessary and duplicative, but also frequently contradictory of the main article. Headers are expressions of opinions and not facts, as is the content of the sections, which is heavily weighted to an anti-Islam-centric view of RWP. Original outline article, before removal of unsourced and non-neutral material, can be seen here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I had a look at a few different recent past versions of this article and I didn't see any that showed any hope of being valid articles. None of them were actually an "outline" and if anybody does want an outline of the subject then Right-wing populism is the place to go. The main content was just lists which were curated in a POV way. If anybody wants a big list of articles related to the subject then Category:Right-wing populism is the place to go. This is indeed an unnecessary POVFORK. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Delete is probably the right thing but it’s bad form form for the editor doing the nominating to effectively blank the article then nominate it. Of course once the content is removed deletion is obvious. It would be best if we judge the article based on versions prior to the blanking [[1]]. There may be value to such a list but it might be achievable through category tags instead. Springee (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I was thinking the same thing when I saw this and have restored it to the point when it was nominated. Dream Focus 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nothing salvageable in current or previous versions; any potential content belongs in Right-wing populism. –dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having read through the article it just seems like personal opinion, politically biased at that. No references at all. Dream Focus 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not an outline, but an unreferenced fork. I'm generally against WP:TNT but I don't believe we can keep an NPOV article at this title long-term, nor see the need for an outline here. Daß Wölf 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POVFORK that doesn't add anything new to the main article and conveniently omits any criticism of right-wing populism. (Note: I'm generally against all outlines for the former reason, but this is a particularly egregious case for the latter reason.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per everyone's comments however mostly because it is an unnecessary content fork and more of a project page for the author themselves. Ajf773 (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with fire. Indeed, this is ultimately a POV-pushing content fork that's attempting to present an alternate view of a topic that already has a more neutral and balanced article, not a properly constituted outline of a topic that's broad enough to need an outline. Bearcat (talk) 00:40, 17 September 2019 (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.