Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide

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 NO CONSENSUS. After analyzing the agruments of both sides, I think there is no consensus to keep or delete this article. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This article is blatant, ridiculous POV propaganda and an unneeded fork/original research. Its just different instances of violence caused by Communism and put it under the umbrella of "genocide"; furthermore it is extreme POV to associate actions of individual regimes with communism as a whole. The page was created as soapboxing by a user whose sole edits so far are POV pushing on Communism. Every system of government is responsible for many deaths throughout history, I don't see why Communism must be singled out. Furthermore, the deaths that occurred under communism was not genocide. Triplestop x3 17:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note from nominator, I apologize for having gotten carried away on this. I still think this page should go, but I will be removing this from my watch list. Cheers, Triplestop x3 01:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize

  1. Notability There are not enough RS to establish that deaths under communist regimes constitute genocide, nor that "Communist genocide" is a notable term. Furthermore, the two words used together doesn't make "Communist genocide" as a term notable, it just means "genocide by communists".
  2. POV It is incorrect to associate Communism in general with mass killings of individual regimes. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" != genocide, besides most killed by Communist regimes were not rich. As defined in the Wikipedia page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings?
  3. Trolling This is the work of a banned crosswiki vandal in a blatant attempt to incite conflict in a controversial subject
  1. Synthesis This is a bunch of sources, unrelated in the definition of "communist genocide", attempting to advocate the aforementioned unnotable concept.
"Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide" Wow, thats about as POV as it gets. Triplestop x3 15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then fix the article. The fact that an article might have some POV in it is not a sufficient reason to delete it.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article, by it's very nature, pushes a POV that can't be removed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not. And how can an article be POV "by it's very nature" - was it decided at the beginning of time by the Grand Creator (or Grand Someone) that this particular article was going to be POV by "it's very nature"? What are you talking about? There's nothing POV about the "nature" of this article, and if there is POV in the article itself it can be removed. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's POV in the same way "List of all Republican Serial Killers" would be inherently POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin Given the nature of the subject, there is going to be clear bias in the votes. I ask that this be taken into account. Triplestop x3 03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - why should the nominator be allowed to put a very POV, biased, pronouncement at the top of the page (which makes sure that everyone will read it, as opposed to sifting through the individual comments and votes) asserting that somehow the voting is "biased" (which obviously, according to Triplestop, means that it hasn't gone according to her/his wishes). This is an attempt at manipulating the outcome with a grievous disregard of the actual votes. It borders on disruptive editing.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote at all. What he has requested is that the Admin remember this, and disregard comments if the user posting them seemed very biased and did not have good reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean it's not a vote "at all"? It's a bunch of people voting, isn't it? How does that make it not a vote? Obviously, if you take one side, you're going to think that the people who vote on the other side are wrong. But to jump from that to the conclusion that the other votes should not be counted - i.e. only the "right" votes should be counted - is ridiculous (and also appropriately fitting, given the subject matter).radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another note The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here. Triplestop x3 20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supplementary note - the nature of the creator should mean, I think, that the default should be delete, not keep, if the judgement is "no consensus". Rd232 talk 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the sock puppet investigation as well as the user page of the creator. He wasn't banned, he was blocked indefinitely. There's a subtle distinction (at least some have said as much before) between the two, and a ban is quite different. If you read the blocking admin's explanation too, it undermines the notion that everything this user touches is cursed, which is not how G5 works. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the creator (whoever s/he is - I have no idea) has no barring on a delete/keep vote what so ever! What are you making up here? There's been plenty of editing at the article since it was created. The default, per Wiki policy, is keep if no consensus is reached.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page is a clear attempt to incite conflict in an issue of this controversial nature. If we can't agree to keep it, then don't feed the troll and trash it. Nothing of value would be lost Triplestop x3 02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it goes without saying that we're way beyond speedy territory. There's obviously a lot of debate about a simple delete, there's certainly not consensus for a speedy at this point. Not to mention, G5 requires "having no substantial edits by others." Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate that concern, and I don't think it's wrong for you to have nominated it, but you're pretty bent on getting rid of this article. I'm just suggesting we don't lose sight of the big picture (encyclopedia). Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep Communism killed 100 million people which is more than Nazism. Communist genocide is a fact. Please keep this article. The article is nominated for deletion minutes after its creation. I am still working on it. --Joklolk (talk) 17:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC) — Joklolk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Comment struck - banned user.[reply]

  • — Note to closing admin: Joklolk (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. You can work on it, but there is nothing of encyclopedic value here--just a big ole soapbox. Drmies (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the material is appropriate, but it's being assembled in an inappropriate way; Communist genocide falls under WP:NEO. Mintrick (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is WP:SYNTH, and the article seems to be used for some kind of advocacy. I have found absolutely no evidence that the term "communist genocide" (as referring to an universal concept) even exists in credible sources. Taking a quick look at some of the references used in the article, there is no indication that it is even a real term. For example, the article says Former Vietnamese judge Nguyen Cao Quyen who was a victim of communist political repression after communist victory in Vietnam War describes communist genocide as "genocide of entire classes" (clearly implying that the source is talking about a universal concept "communist genocide", but the source actually says: Since 1945, the Vietnamese Communists exterminated religious leaders, assassinated opposition leaders, killed intellectuals, businessmen, and even peasants who disagreed with their ideology. These terrorist acts were crimes against humanity and the genocide of entire classes. Thus, it does not use the term "communist genocide" at all. It seems that this article is being used as a vehicle to invent a new concept and give credibility to it. I'm sure all of this material is present in the articles about the different genocides, so there is absolutely no need for this advocating, original synthesis article. Offliner (talk) 10:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable concept - used in 300+ books. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those refer to specific incidents where communist regimes have committed genocide, not an overarching concept of "communist genocide". This article is about the latter. Mintrick (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I haven't found any indication that the latter even exists. Can someone please point out a source which really discusses the universal concept "communis genocide"? Offliner (talk) 10:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a lot more here than the BB, which is just one of the sources--the question is whether there is a type of genocide characteristic of Communist regimes; personally, I have my doubts about it as a specific common factors but it's a well-known concept. DGG (talk) 00:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The main problem with the article is that it's original synthesis. For example, is there a source which explicitly states that "during the Russian Civil War the Bolsheviks engaged in a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks" is part of an universal "communist genocide"? All of the incidents listed here are covered in their own articles, so why do we need this article? Here we are replicating content that is already present elsewhere, and putting it all together in a very questionable way. Offliner (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
are you challenging whether there was a campaign of genocide against the Don Cossacks, or whether the government that engaged it it was Communist?DGG (talk) 19:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read my comment. I'm not denying either. Offliner (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't indicate the overall concept is notable though. Triplestop x3 03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that article that would confirm that "communist genocide" is a specific term or a concept. The article mentions it only once, in the title. The term itself is not discussed in the article at all. Offliner (talk) 10:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That chapter was found with a search of Communist genocide in Google Books. Apparently there is only one hit in the entire book. On page 238, the words Communist and genocide both appear but not together. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we already have separate articles about those genocides. This article is about the universal concept of "communist genocide" - of which I haven't seen any indication that such concept (or even the term) exists. Offliner (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Holocaust is also a "democide" according to Rummel's definition, by your reasoning the Holocaust was not genocide? Quite a number of authors such as Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth have made the connection between mass killing in a number of communist regimes, the connection being that communist ideology was used as the justification for the killing. --Martintg (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the works by Stéphane Courtois, Benjamin Valentino, John Gray, Eric Weitz, Ronit Lenṭin and Rebecca Knuth. --Martintg (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]