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 redirect to Italian Social Movement. T. Canens (talk) 05:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian Movement of Social Unity[edit]

Italian Movement of Social Unity (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)

Poor reference. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep: if the problems were the notability poor sources, now I have added a large bibliography about it--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment It existed for a month in 1946. How did it achieve notability in that time? How would it not be better redirected to Italian Social Movement? Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the proposal concerns the deletion of the page of this party, which, although small and short-lived, contributed to the foundation of the MSI... --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - notably notability isn't temporary, if the party was notable albeit for a short period it remains notable. Having a quick glance in google books indicates that there are quite a lot of entries for MIUS. The tumultuous period of transition from WWII fascism to parliamentary neo-fascism seems to have attracted significant scholarly attention. --Soman (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete Redirect to Italian Social Movement is enough. The party, in its one and half month of exisetency never participated to any election and have been one of many movements/associations/parties which merged together to create the Italian Social Movement. --НУРшЯGIO^{(beware of the moose)} 12:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into Italian Social Movement. There is evidence of notability here though as a stand-alone article things looks far less convincing. The article is a couple of paragraphs which could be merged into a longer article to provide context and detail. As above, the evidence is that the party existed but did not achieve anything notable prior to, or following, elections. doktorb _words^deeds 07:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Italian Social Movement (as there isn't anything sourced worth to merge, and it is already mentioned there). It fails GNG and was never notable on its own. It lasted little over a month, and during this time it was more a virtual entity than a real party/movement. All the sources, including the "lot of entries" mentioned by Soman, are brief mentions related to the foundation of the Italian Social Movement, none of them being significant coverage. Also the sources currently in the bibliography are faked as to make it appear the movement was notable: eg. the link to the book La Destra in Italia: 1945-1969 highlightens 18 citations, but they are citations for fronte dell'italiano. This movement/party is mentioned in the book just once: [1], and given the nature and the very specific subject of the book, as well as its extensive length (695 pages), if it was really notable it would had been covered in a couple dozen pages. --151.54.248.238 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Redirect to Italian Social Movement. I agree that there isn't worth merging as far as the sources are concerned, but it's still worth a redirect IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[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.