Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-völkisch movements

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 keep. BD2412 T 23:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-völkisch movements

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

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

The article has serious issues and I don't think it can be salvaged. The scope is too unclear and has been a hodgepodge of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK from the very start. It was started in 2007 as an article on Nazi satanism, and quickly went through several moves and discussions about what to include. It was moved from Nazi satanism to Neo-fascism and paganism, but still covered phenomena like neo-Nazi Satanism, Nazi occultism and esoteric Nazism, repeatedly changing form and causing confusion on the talk page. Eventually a somewhat scholarly term was found: Neo-völkisch movements, which comes from the 2002 book Black Sun by the historian Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. But Goodrick-Clarke's term only covers parts of the content, of which most either is unsourced or comes from other sources, where the term doesn't appear at all. And from what I can see, the term hasn't been picked up by other scholars. A search on Google Books gives a few hits, but they neither follow Goodrick-Clarke's definition nor align with the content of this article. The main user of the term other than Goodrick-Clarke is the anti-racist organization Southern Poverty Law Center, which uses it as a classification on its website, but the SPLC has its own definition, limited to racist neo-pagan groups. The SPLC's definition also seems to be the one used in the only other scholarly publication where I found the term (Höfig, V. (2019). "Vinland and White Nationalism"). Even if the SPLC definition was notable on its own, which I doubt it is, it would still be wrong to shoehorn it into an article that used to be about Nazi satanism.

I propose that we either delete this article or redirect it to the article about Goodrick-Clarke's book, which is the source for the few parts that could be considered substantiated. Ffranc (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Völkisch is used by some European scholars to desginate movements inspired by the Völkisch movement that emerged after WWII. It describes a political worldview centred around a quasi-mystical racialist populism, which does not necessarily encompass a form of esoteric occultism (just like what the Völkisch movement itself was). See for instance François (2005) or Wagner (2015). Alcaios (talk)

Yes, there is a few instances of other uses of the term. But they are separate from Goodrick-Clarke's use, which has its own definition and focuses on neo-Nazi mysticism, and thereby can include Nazi Satanism etc. The ones you linked and the other ones I found refer more directly to the historical völkisch movement, without creating any new definition. Ffranc (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

split -- I agree with the analysis of WP:COATRACK, but I would suggest the proper approach to this would be splitting, not deleting. This is preferable because the edit history will be preserved, and there is no reason to throw out the work already done just because there is no unity in subject matter. The title can become a redirect or a disambiguation page. The term "neo-völkisch" exists, even though it may be a political neologism and as such only used by detractors, so it may or may not be proper to use it "in Wikipedia's voice", but "neo-völkisch" as a concept held by at least some observers to be useful in grouping this type of ideology surely can find some kind of treatment somewhere on Wikipedia. A quick survey suggests that the term is coined by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, so if nothing else, it can be discussed in his article as something suggested or entertained by this particular writer. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How should it be split though? Some of the groups and individuals already have their own articles, so there is nothing further that needs to be split there. I'm afraid that if we cut or split out everything problematic, what we will be left with is a partial summary of Goodrick-Clarke's book. And then it's better to just redirect to the book and write a proper summary there. Ffranc (talk) 11:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I could see it work as a disambiguation page, with one link to Völkisch movement and one to Black Sun (Goodrick-Clarke book). Possibly also a link to Southern Poverty Law Center, although it doesn't currently mention the term. Ffranc (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split or delete but at the very least rewrite. This article has long had a major problem with synthesis. If it is going to remain, the article needs to be restricted to where the phrase Neo-Völkisch is actually used, which does not appear to be much exterior to Goodrick-Clarke and the SPLC. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable subject, referenced. No reason to delete. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Beyond My Ken, as well the new movements should be distinguished from the historic Völkisch movement.(KIENGIR (talk) 09:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This may need to be improved or protected, but objective content on this is needed. --- FULBERT (talk) 13:19, 16 June 2020 (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.