Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

Purge server cache

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 Cape Verdean diaspora#International communities. Daniel (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdeans in Luxembourg

[edit]
Cape Verdeans in Luxembourg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. The level of migration is not subject to significant coverage. LibStar (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: if the assert that Cape Verdeans The actual figure may be 4,000, almost 1% of the total population, which would make it the highest ratio of Cape Verdeans in any foreign country can be substantiated/it can be shown that around 1% of the population of Luxembourg is Cape Verdean that would at least make some possible argument towards notability, but there would still need to be articles about it to pass WP:GNG. I would think that if that number if true there should be a few sources to work with. With neither of these countries using English as a first languages, I've had a hard time trying to find sources to establish notability. I was ready for delete save for that one line. snood1205(Say Hi! (talk)) 03:38, 27 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

YNW Juvy

[edit]
YNW Juvy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NBASIC or WP:NMUSIC. ––FormalDude talk 22:33, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sachet Engineer

[edit]
Sachet Engineer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough to meet WP:GNG, acting roles don't meet WP:NACTOR and a handful of state level amateur events don't meet WP:NSPORT Ravensfire (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of the youngest mayors in the United States

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of the youngest mayors in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Arbitrary cross-categorisation ("mayor" and "ago upon taking office") and selection. Seems like an original collection based on individual sources which fail to discuss the individual members as a group. The sources I can find of the topic do not seem to discuss this in the same way as the article, posing further issues. For ex. this; or they limit themselves to those in larger cities (and again, only mentioning one person, which might at best be pertinent in the article about that person, but does not justify the rest of this trivia list).

This seems to be something somebody thought was interesting one day (which is not a valid criterion for having an article), and on top of that they then failed to check whether it meets any of the criteria (including WP:NOR and WP:V - given this is an original compilation of data not published elsewhere [how can we make sure this list is actually accurate and hasn't missed/omitted some entries, if there's no other source which makes this compilation?], both of these problems apply) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:11, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 speedy delete three per G5, restored original content for the remaining two per WP:DENY. ✗plicit 23:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Western Iraq

[edit]
Western Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Southern Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eastern Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Northern Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Central Iraq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user has created several articles about geographical regions of Iraq which entirely lack proper sources. It is certain that the terms 'western Iraq', 'Northern Iraq' etc. have a generally understood meaning, but they are not government units or standard statistical areas. Instead, the article creator has simply imagined them and concocted a lot of fake references which don't support them. In this bundle of articles I have found some sources which refer to a particular governorate of Iraq and happen to mention its geographical location; other sources don't mention any governorates at all and are lists of cities; some sources are just random junk that don't support anything at all. The kindest thing I can say about these is that they are original research. To be clear the issue is not that these regions exist in reality but the articles are badly sourced; they do not exist in reality and sources that purport to show that they are, are fake. Mccapra (talk) 21:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update I’ve added two more articles to the bundle. Also I forgot to say in my original nomination that while the concepts of the article subjects (i.e. distinct “regions” of Iraq) are OR, the article content just consists of forks from the existing articles on individual governorates. Mccapra (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No I just didn’t see that one as far as I recall. It’s not a new article so I guess it didn’t show up at NPP where I found the others. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any thoughts on bundling? I suspect that due to the Kurdish region, Northern Iraq could potentially be a more salient category than the other cardinal directions, but as I said that article suffers from OR issues too. signed, Rosguill talk 23:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I’ve looked at it properly, I agree. The same issues exactly. While the term “northern Iraq” has a more commonly accepted general meaning, it’s still not any kind of official, statistical or other region, none of the “sources” support the definition, and the content isn’t even about a supposed entity of northern Iraq, it’s a cut and paste assembly of info that already exists in the individual governorate articles. I will add it to the bundle, along with Central Iraq, which I’ve just discovered. Mccapra (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article creator now blocked as a sockpuppet. Mccapra (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asylumsoft Inc.

[edit]
Asylumsoft Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This video game developer doesn't seem to be entirely obscure: they were involved in making Ashen Empires. However, none of the sources presently in the article contain significant coverage. The better ones are just press releases. I have conducted a search and have found nothing better than what we already have; I think the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Osialfecanakmg

[edit]
Osialfecanakmg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable acronym/mnemonic, total lack of significant coverage. Lennart97 (talk) 21:23, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Article improved during discussion so hard to establish whether a true consensus to keep exists. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surdulica City Stadium

[edit]
Surdulica City Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small town sports stadium that has been unsourced for over 5 years, no reliable sources found other than routine sports coverage and casual mentions. Attempt to redirect reverted by a single editor who pointily reverted numerous unsourced articles from being redirected to their associated club articles, following a flap at RfD -- and perhaps one should take note that the editor in question, with only a handful of edits, has a user name identical to the stadium involved. [2]. Per WP:GEOFEAT, "Buildings, including private residences and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability."

Keep The size of a town is irrelevant. The article was put to AFD just to illustrate a point. The above user deleted or redirected half of the stadium articles from that country. Ludost Mlačani (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And?. What is your policy argument for keep? Polyamorph (talk) 06:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No clear consensus, indications of some degree of coverage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded article a bit, I think this can help. Olos88 (talk) 10:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, let's walk down the sources you've added:

    #13 - The sum total of content about the stadium in this edit is that a mural of a person was placed there. Casual mention, doesn't meet the GNG.

    #12 - the subject is not mentioned at all.

    #11 - Only the most fleeting mention of the subject: "Like other super league matches of Vranje, says Antic, this duel will be played in the neighboring Surdulica."

    #10 - The stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city: "The host of the final is Surdulica."

    #9 - The text states that this is a press release.

    #8 - The stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city.

    #7 - In this forty-word sound bite, the stadium isn't mentioned at all; only the city.

    #6 - A casual mention, and here's the sum total: "And on a field that, to put it mildly, does not offer ideal conditions for the game. The capacity of the stadium is only 3,312 seats."

    #5 - The city is namedropped twice in a routine match report; the stadium is not mentioned.

    #4 - We see this as the final sentence of a match report: "Before the game, around 2 pm, two groups of Partizan fans clashed with each other on the way to Surdulica."

    In short, you just googled "Surdulica" + "football" and threw up a bunch of results. No, this does not help. I work under the presumption you're acting in good faith, but WP:REFBOMBING is a waste of our time and energy. Ravenswing 12:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Again, I didn't add all these sources to prove stadium's notability by presence in this articles, I just add more informations that can (maybe) convince you that this subject is worth of having a stub on en-wiki :) So, the stadium stands from 1955, from 2015 every season hosts Superliga matches of Radnik Surdulica, which was on last season the 6th power of serbian club football, for one season it even hosted Superliga matches of some other club, which had problems with their own ground, and in 2018 hosted national cup final (which, in terms of "notability by significant coverage", gain some extraordinary focus on that pitch and caused a dispute whether it is relevant for hosting such game, which also gain some media attention). And no, I didn't just googled "Surdulica" + "football" and threw up a bunch of results, it's quite unfair to sum up my work on expanding this article and giving some more important informations, in that way. Olos88 (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I'm not saying that some of those sources might not be useful in providing information, or that sources that bolster the notability of the subject are the only ones which belong in articles. That's just not the issue at hand. The issue here is whether there are sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to the team. Without those sources, there could be fifty newspaper articles namedropping the stadium (and given WP:ROUTINE sports coverage, probably would be), and the subject still fails the GNG. As far as the GNG is concerned, 0+0+0+0+0+0+0=0. Bringing qualifying sources to our attention is what would save the article. Anything else is superfluous. Ravenswing 09:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some extra portion of informations and refs. I really think that this is enough for "significant coverage", at least in this case... Otherwise, I think that some notability discussion should be started (this is good way to start: WP:NVENUE), because from many years we have plenty of articles about stadiums such like this one and many of them can be easily questioned in the same way, which could lead to chaos and massive deletion. Olos88 (talk) 05:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A considerable amount of discussion but still no clear consensus. Suggestions that sufficient sources have been added to show notability, but GNG is shown through the significance of the coverage not the number of sources themselves which seems to be what is being shown here. Not sure HEY is applicable here either as sources have been discussed in this as they have been added. Rather than simply adding refs and asking "is this enough", it would help the closing admin for editors to point to specific sources and elements in them which amount to significant coverage. There's clearly at the worst the odd mention of the stadium in a wide variety of sources but very difficult to tell the degree to which editors feel it goes to any real depth.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment From analysing some of the sources, the following appear to be independent and should count towards establishing notability:
    • Stadiums.net appears to be a database, but it does have two paragraphs with history of the stadium.
    • Vranje News has a section on a player taken from Wikipedia which can be ignored, but the article itself is about a mural on this stadium.
    • Juzne Vesti, which I added to the article while writing this comment, focuses on the installation of floodlights and refurbishment of the stadium
    • Novosti, a second article focusing on the renovation of the stadium

NemesisAT (talk) 21:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - we can't just close the AfD as there are outstanding opinions on both sides. Happy for any other admin to call when they see fit, but these comments on the sources are just the sort of comments that help form consensus. Fenix down (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Young Lawyers Forum - Kashmir

[edit]
Young Lawyers Forum - Kashmir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

promotional and non notable. I tried to draftify but it was reverted. DGG ( talk ) 21:02, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Daniel (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Table of oil NER

[edit]
Table of oil NER (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on a single source. I'm not clear what this is about, and it seems an arbitrary selection of oil fields. Not sure if "Net Energy Return" is equivalent to Net energy gain? Maybe some of this info could be merged into List of oil fields but I defer to anyone with more expertise. the wub "?!" 21:00, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 09:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Acuff

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jon Acuff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR. The sources are not reliable. Kaihsnual (talk) 17:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Plutonical, I haven’t taken a look but something you said caught my attention, this: “Are you sure you looked for reliable sources regarding the article before nominating?”, I take it that is supposed to be a rhetorical question right? If not, then I believe the right discussion would have been to explain to the nominator how the subject of this discussion meets WP:NAUTHOR. Having said it appears the article has been deleted in the past although (10 years ago), I think I should have a look then cast a !vote. Celestina007 (talk) 19:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think they were asking if a WP:BEFORE search was done. – The Grid (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid, yes, Probably, to be honest I did a private “before search” & I honestly can’t even blame the nominator, honestly except you know what and where to look for, anyone would erroneously nominate this for deletion. Celestina007 (talk) 20:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I do not blame the nominator for nominating this, first it is a blatant ADMASQ (I’m going to remove utterly every single WP:LARD this article is riddled with) secondly it has just two sources with one being a WP:QS, so i definitely understand that the nom felt justified in nominating this, Infact a WP:BEFORE brings back results in predominantly self published and user generated sources. This are one of the few instances in which an individual who appears not to be notable becomes “notable” because of an SNG. In this case an argument that #3 of WP:NAUTHOR is satisfied can be made. As aforementioned I’m going to remove all the promotional material in that article no matter how minute or insignificant. Celestina007 (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, clpo13(talk) 20:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - pinging prior participants Kaihsnual, Plutonical, The Grid, and Celestina007 to let them know that this was closed as a keep but I asked the closer to relist it so I could !vote delete. Reasons:
    • The Forbes contributor source is not an RS per WP:FORBESCON (discussed above)
    • Relevant (magazine) is not an RS. (That it's not listed at WP:RSP doesn't mean that it is, or is not, an RS.) It's not scholarship or journalism, but a religious advocacy organization. I cannot find a masthead or evidence of a professional journalism staff or editorial oversight. The website solicits contributions and I suspect it may be primarily contributor-written. The podcast hosts do not appear to be subject matter experts or have other relevant expertise (they're not professional book reviewers or biographers or journalists or scholars, as far as I can tell). Finally, I don't see where in this 75-minute podcast it provides WP:SIGCOV of the article subject and would ask for timestamps to support that argument.
    • I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR #3. Although he has published several books that have made the US bestseller lists (no small feat, for sure), I don't think that having bestselling books, alone, constitutes " a significant or well-known work or collective body of work". NAUTHOR #3 also requires that "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", which I don't think is met here. I cannot find any critical reviews of his books in RS (e.g., he has a NYT bestseller, but doesn't appear to have been reviewed by NYT). Google Scholar shows little or no RS citing any of the subject's books. Popularity, alone, doesn't constitute wiki-notability in my view.
    • Most importantly, I can find no RS from which we could write an article about this subject. Because Wikipedia summarizes sources, a Wikipedia biography should be a summary of RS biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish a biography about anyone. Without any RS biographies, or any RS SIGCOV, there is no way we can write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:BLP.
    • Thanks to everyone for indulging me in taking a second look at this one. Levivich 16:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can keep it if relevant sources are added since he's published a few books so I am sure he must have got some coverage. Mathieu Vouillamoz (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TheAafi, hello mate, it is somewhat of a subsection of #3NAU see “or of multiple independent [periodical] articles or [reviews]”. I personally do not intend to dwell too much on this AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and NAUTHOR. I could find only one (alleged) review. Amazon shows an Associated Press review of Do Over, but that's second-hand, and it's only one. Plus I can't find much about the man himself. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the requirements of WP:ANYBIO / WP:NAUTHOR. Dan arndt (talk) 03:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After much consideration the brilliant Levivich has changed my stance on this. Furthermore per comments by both my friend Dan ardnt & Plutonical all of which have convinced me that this isn’t notable at the moment. I intend to shy away from biographies on authors as their threshold for notability seems rather low and bother line difficult to ascertain, I have witnessed some articles on authors and just for the sheer fact that their works have been reviewed & just like that, boom! the author is deemed notable, but as pointed out by Levivich above “multiple independent periodical articles or reviews,?which I don't think is met here. I cannot find any critical reviews of his books” I believe this at this juncture. Although I’d like to correct something, “a single book” which has received sufficient critical reviews is enough to warrant an article for the author on mainspace. From WP:nauthor it expressly states “The person has created or played a major role in co-creating [a significant or well-known work” So yes, as aforementioned just one book written can warrant an article on the author if the named criteria above is met. Having said, I’d like to appreciate the diligence of Levivich. Celestina007 (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Port Stephens Pythons

[edit]
Port Stephens Pythons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

According to this article itself ("top grade", etc), the subject appears to satisfy WP:CRIN. But I'm extremely suspicious that a notable cricket team would only be mentioned once on all of wikipedia (on Raymond Terrace).

Article has been flagged as "may not meet notability guidelines" since 2016 to no apparent comment. I don't think it passes a typical WP:GNG, since the coverage I was able to find is pretty routine. As someone who knows basically nothing about cricket, I'm happy to withdraw this AfD early and clear that tag if someone who does know about cricket can confidently state that the team is notable. The sources for the article at present are a disaster, but Google does turn up some (local) media coverage - it would be possible to improve this article, but there's no point in doing that if someone will just come by later to kill it for not being notable in the first place. asilvering (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Fenix down (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021–22 Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh)

[edit]
2021–22 Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Have posted two other articles to AfD, season doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. Govvy (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Fenix down (talk) 22:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh)

[edit]
2020 Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by banned User:SR Alamgir Khan, this could be a G5, but because it has some citations sent to AfD. Article doesn't appear to pass basic WP:GNG, fails WP:NSEASONS also. Govvy (talk) 18:28, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Fenix down (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh)

[edit]
Pioneer Football League (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by banned User:SR Alamgir Khan, this could be a G5, but because it has some citations sent to AfD. Article doesn't appear to pass basic WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. I find HighKing's contributions the most persuasive, and that a narrow consensus exists supporting them. Daniel (talk) 03:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catalyte

[edit]
Catalyte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organization that fails WP:NORG as they lack in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. A before search turns up hits in user generated sources and a plethora of press releases/mere announcements. Celestina007 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you are the creator of the article. Now, both the CNN and business insider sources but are promotional pieces thus fall under the WP:QS thus cannot be used here. The Baltimore isn’t independent of the organization thus the piece is in variance with WP:NCORP which requires that a source used should be independent of the organization. Furthermore this is an WP:ADMASQ that appears to be of no encyclopedic value, coupled with the deficiency in WP:ORGDEPTH there isn’t a plausible cause to retain it. Celestina007 (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the Baltimore what isn't independent? I've looked through the links, but I am unclear on how the CNN and Business Insider articles are promotional. As the business is doing positive work, the coverage is going to be positive as well. Is that what makes it promotional? I also don't see how this is an advertisement, is it the tone? I don't want to just post this solely myself, my hope was that it would be a collaborative article that would grow as others added to it. Banjosound (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Banjosound (talk • contribs) 17:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some debate over whether or not the article meets WP:ORG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 21:51, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The Baltimore Business Journal articles are "courtesy of Catalyte", but the CNN, Business Insider, Inc. , Baltimore Magazine and Baltimore Sun articles all look like significant, independent coverage (though the Baltimore Sun talks about "Catalyst"). Rusalkii (talk) 01:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. The coverage does seem soft, but that doesn't necessarily make it churnalism. Both Business Insider and Inc. provide some independent opinion and analysis. I would prefer three clearly independent refs, but when it's this close, I'll err on the side of keep. Pegnawl (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is met. There is enough content in the sources shared above and they clearly offer more than just "churnalism". NemesisAT (talk) 20:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Since this topic is about a company, the applicable guideline is WP:NCORP and not GNG. WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. The Baltimore Sun references are unavailable but the headlines suggest they are based on company announcements. None of the remaining references in the article meet the criteria as follows:
    • CNN article is entirely based on information provided by a former student and/or the company and its executives. There is no "Independent Content" and therefore reference fails WP:ORGIND criteria.
    • Business Insider (also mentioned above by Banjosound and Pegnawl) is a puff piece on the company and/or the CEO and relies entirely on information provided during his interview. It has no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
    • Biz Journals article relies entirely on a company announcement and other information provided by the company about an acquisition and raising finance. The article has no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This INC reference (also mentioned above) relies entirely on an interview wit the CEO and has no "Independent Content". Fails ORGIND.
    • Baltimore Magazine article is a profile puff piece on the company and relies entirely on an interview provided by a former student and information provided by the company and executives. Good photos in fairness but again, no "Independent Content", fails WP:ORGIND.
    • Business Insider reference is based entirely on an interview with the company founder, fails ORGIND
    • PR News publishes Press Releases. Fails ORGIND.
    • Technically article is based on the same announcement as the Biz Journals article above, fails ORGIND for the same reason in that there's zero "Independent Content".
    • This next Biz Journals reference is entirely based on this company announcement and repeated in this Press Release including the quotes from the CEO and CTO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
    • This third Biz Journals reference is another puff piece based entirely on their announcement of the RetrainAmerica program, including quotes from signed-up customers. Similar article using the exact same quotes and information can be found such as at Yahoo Finance. Fails WP:ORGIND
    • The fourth Biz Journals reference is yet another puff piece also based on a company announcement in conjunction with signed-up customers and partners. And just like with the other Biz Journals articles, it contains no "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND
    • This Forbes post mentions the company in passing to say that McDonough (the topic of the article) is on the topic company's board of directors. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Having searched myself and examined the references provided, I have been unable to find *any* references that meet NCORP criteria, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right (emphasis mine). My interpretation of the "or" here is that a subject passes if it meets GNG, or it meets one of the SNGs (of which WP:NCORP is one). NemesisAT (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you're going to pick and chose only those bits and pieces which you like, and you've decided to only look at WP:GNG, you still need to look at WP:NCORP. The WP:SNG section within GNG states (with added emphasis): In some topic areas, consensus-derived subject-specific notability guidelines (SNGs) have been written to help clarify when a standalone article can or should be written. and later it says SNGs can also provide examples of sources and types of coverage considered significant for the purposes of determining notability, such as the treatment of book reviews for our literature guidelines and the strict significant coverage requirements spelled out in the SNG for organizations and companies. Thank you for clarifying the basis of your !vote though, hopefully the closing admin will take note. HighKing++ 17:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the closing admin follows what is written in the lead section of WP:GNG, which ought to be a fair summary of the contents of that page, then my vote and argument stands. What you are suggesting directly contradicts with the lead section of GNG. NemesisAT (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the closing admin will be aware of recent discussions on this matter which resulted in the changes I highlighted at GNG. You can wiki-lawyer each paragraph of GNG and pick only those parts that satisfy your argument but that is against the spirit of GNG and the various SNGs. HighKing++ 21:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In addition to the sources already provided, there are a book source discussing the company:
  • Thompson, Clive (2019-03-26). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-7352-2057-7. Jumpytoo Talk 21:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nonsense. Either Jumpytoo didn't read the book or doesn't understand the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. In the chapter on "Blue-collar Coding", the author discusses how software companies are hiring from "non-traditional" groups and points out that Catalyte uses an online aptitude test to identify candidates. It then uses quotes from the CEO to explain why they do it. There's some details provided on the various ways people are tested e.g. "applicants work on math questions, puzzles, and a writing section, with the system monitoring the flow of how the test-taker work". All of the information is provided by the company. All of the information is focused on the test. There is no in-depth information on the actual company - so it fails CORPDEPTH - and there's no information that hasn't been provided by the company and/or the CEO - so it fails ORGIND. HighKing++ 17:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course I read the book, how else could I know it has SIGCOV of the company? And I completely disagree with your evaluation in terms of NCORP. The fact that there are lines are from the CEO does not invalidate the entire source, there is original synthesis about how the company hiring practice may be superior (comparing their hiring method towards the culture fit method which greatly favoured men, and how the benefit of hiring employees from nontraditional fields is that you gain their broader perspective), and the content is editorially independent (author has no COI with Catalyte). Let me pose this to you, "Why would the author pick Catalyte as the example over many other companies that also do aptitude tests?" If you look at it from this lens it is fairly clear from all the sources given that the unique hiring practices gives this company its notability and justification for an article. Unless you are attempting to justify an article on "Catalyte hiring practices", which editorially makes no sense. Jumpytoo Talk 19:19, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Getting mentioned in a book doesn't automatically confer notability. In this particular book, the topic company is used as an example of their use of aptitude tests. The book doesn't talk about the company or provide any in-depth information on the company - CORPDEPTH requires Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Where precisely in this book does the author provide any information about the actual company or product? *All* of the information about the company's practices is provided by the CEO with the occasional summary of that information provided by the author. There's an anecdotal story about the experience of one employee who used to play the flute for a living before switching. This is not CORPDEPTH and because there is no "Independent Content" *about* the *company* it also fails WP:ORGIND. You ask why was Catalyte chosen? Who knows? The author doesn't say and nothing more can be or should be inferred. You go on to synthesise that "it is fairly clear from all the sources given that the unique hiring practices gives this company its notability and justification" - and that's nonsense. Certainly the author does not say anything approaching your synthesis and I'd go further and challenge you that Catalyte isn't unique in this regard. HighKing++ 13:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With appreciation for HighKing's analysis of the Business Insider and Inc articles referenced in my original vote, I'm going to concede that there is no independent analysis or opinion of the company within these articles, and change my weak keep to delete. I also agree that the book noted above doesn't seem to provide coverage that's significant or independent enough to sufficiently carry this entry. Pegnawl (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I found and added a few more sources (Financial Times, Forbes, Inc., CBSNews) to the page! Banjosound (talk) 16:35, 01 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's an analysis of those sources:
      • Financial Times is a piece described as a close look at how artificial intelligence will affect the human resources department — including recruitment and monitoring performance — reveals a complex picture. It mentions the topic company but relies entirely on information about the company which was provided by an individual connected with the company. There is no "Independent Content" and fails WP:ORGIND.
      • The Forbes "sites" reference is from a "contributor" and the general practice is that these articles are not reliable and are not used for the purposes of establishing notability. Further, the author confesses that her husbands firm has invested in the topic company. Fails WP:RS.
      • The INC reference is a generic "Best of" non-notable awards and is regarded as trivial coverage, failsWP:CORPDEPTH
      • CBS News reference is a profile on a billionaire who looks for investment opportunities in areas that are typically overlooked and is on a bus tour searching for such opportunities and profiling companies that he and other venture capitalists find attractive. The topic company is profiled but all of the information is provided by the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
Clearly, the topic company has a well-oiled marketing department and promotes their unusual hiring practices for their own advantage, but none of the references to date meets *both* key sections of NCORP. WP:CORPDEPTH requires "in-depth information *on the company*" which contains WP:ORGIND "Independent Content" to include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source *unaffiliated* to the subject. That means nothing that *relies* entirely on company information or announcements or interviews, etc, which most references to date clearly do. HighKing++ 11:51, 2 December 2021 (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.
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. Sources found in the AfD, as well as sources already present in the article, created a consensus to keep it. (non-admin closure) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:41, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CyberPowerPC

[edit]
CyberPowerPC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page about a commercial organisation not yet shown to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for companies through multiple independent reliable sources ديلي سبايدر جلي (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. McMatter's argument discards two !keep arguments which were very weak to start with (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and a disputed understanding of SNG v GNG), and from there, there is a consensus to delete. Daniel (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arshad Khan (writer/director , India)

[edit]
Arshad Khan (writer/director , India) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see enough to warrant an article. I did a google search for this person but the results are dominated by another sports person with the same name. It's very hard to establish any kind of credibility towards WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per WP:CREATIVE - multiple notable films as director and writer in his credit. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on SNG & GNG - what I know is that SNG doesn't replace or override GNG (except for academics, politicians maybe). But otherwise, it is presumed that if SNG is being met, GNG would be met. Nomadicghumakkad (talk) 16:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SNG are guides to help us determine when looking at a subject on what to look for to help us establish notability. If you scroll up and read the header Additional Criteria in WP:CREATIVE you will see that these SNGs aren't a conclusive criteria. We require reliable sources to back up these assertions. The single source used in the article is equivalent to an IMDB and a Google search and has absolutely no sway towards notability. Even with the source in the article which is basically a search for new stories about the subject it actually has nothing about them. My searches come up with nothing additional, but this would not include any older news stories (pre-internet) or in languages other then English. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 16:01, 28 November 2021 (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.
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 merge to Transport in Visakhapatnam. Daniel (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MVP Colony bus station

[edit]
MVP Colony bus station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability for this bus station. Fram (talk) 16:59, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 and salt. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Deputy Chairman of the Maharashtra Legislative Council

[edit]
List of Deputy Chairman of the Maharashtra Legislative Council (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For months, an editor has insisted that this must be a stand-alone article, despite the "list" consisting of just one person, the page having an incorrect title, and the topic (even if the list would later become an actual list of multiple people) being of very limited notability. Everything that needs to be said is at Maharashtra_Legislative_Council#Deputy_Chairperson, this was redirected (despite the incorrect title) as a courtesy solution, but apparently this isn't acceptable. So, delete and salt then. Fram (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ski for Two

[edit]
Ski for Two (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, fails NFILM and GNG. From a before search, the only coverage I could find was very basic mentions, nothing more than a sentence or two plot summary. The encyclopedia sources in the article don't provide significant coverage, and The Walter Lantz Cartune Encyclopedia is actually a self-published source, not a professionally published encyclopedia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 23:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chumstick, Washington

[edit]
Chumstick, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as I can tell, this was just a siding. Searching is next to impossible because everything around it is also named "Chumstick something", but that's what the topos and aerials show. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 to delete the article.

Background

The discussion ran for the standard period of seven days[note 1] and drew extensive participation; indeed, it is reportedly the largest 'articles for deletion' in Wikipedia's history. Its purpose was to determine whether the topic covered in the article mass killings under communist regimes meets our project's criteria for inclusion. It was not a discussion about whether the regimes mentioned in the article committed atrocities, nor about their scale, but rather whether a standalone article on "mass killings under communist regimes" is the appropriate way to present such information in an encyclopaedia.

The article, in its various iterations, has previously been nominated for deletion five times. The first three of these discussions led to "no consensus" and the most recent two found a consensus to "keep" the article. However, as the last was over a decade ago, these prior discussions have not had a significant bearing on our assessment of the consensus today.

Discussions on Wikipedia are not mere votes. We make decisions through a consensus model that seeks to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, including those expressed in our standing policies and guidelines. Unanimity is not required and the number of participants on each 'side' is not the primary consideration. Instead, after a discussion has run its course, an uninvolved editor (or in this case, a panel of editors) assesses the balance of relevant arguments and concludes whether a rough consensus has been reached. If there is no consensus, our policy is to maintain the status quo. In a deletion discussion, this means that the article is not deleted.

This discussion has been widely publicised across Wikipedia's internal discussion forums, as well as outside the project in social and news media, drawing an exceptionally large number of participants. Unfortunately, the majority of the outside coverage has falsely portrayed it as a politically-motivated attempt to 'cover up' or otherwise remove the history of left-wing political violence from the encyclopaedia. Whilst all editors in good standing are welcome to join discussions on Wikipedia, when this kind of non-neutral coverage encourages large numbers of people with a particular point of view to take part in a discussion that they would not otherwise participate in—known as 'canvassing'—it severely distorts our consensus-based decision-making process. Canvassing is also more likely to bring inexperienced editors whose arguments are not consistent with Wikipedia policy or otherwise unsound, and consequently not afforded weight in the closing assessment of consensus.

Assessment of consensus

We cannot know the exact extent to which canvassing has distorted this discussion, but it is evidently significant, and canvassed editors were disproportionately in favour of keeping the article. For this reason, we have placed little weight on the raw 'headcount' of participants falling on either side of the debate. By our count, this was approximately 145 in favour of keeping the article versus 35 in favour of deleting it. There were also a handful of arguments in favour of merging the article with another, reverting it to a draft, as well as several neutral comments. Even before examining the strength of arguments, and allowing for canvassing, this 4:1 ratio strongly suggests that there is no consensus to delete the article.

In order to assess whether there is, conversely, a positive consensus to keep the article in its current form, we must examine the strength of arguments with regard to existing policy. For a topic like this, concerned with an emotive and contested historiography, our guiding principles are neutrality and verifiability. We aim to write articles that summarise the range of significant views present in reliable sources on a topic, e.g. mainstream scholarly literature, taking care to give due weight to these views based on their prominence.

The principal argument for deletion is that the article collects together incidents of mass killing by communist regimes that reliable sources normally treat individually, not together under the umbrella of "communist mass killings". Wikipedia editors are not permitted to 'synthesize' disparate bodies of information in this way, because it is considered original research that violates our commitment to verifiability and a neutral point of view. Those in favour of deletion also contended that the individual incidents covered in the article can be—and often already are—more appropriately covered in individual articles (e.g. Cambodian genocide); that the criteria for inclusion in this article are unclear; and that the present state of article is generally low quality and has remained so for many years, despite repeated discussion of its shortcomings. They generally considered the arguments for keeping the article to be undermined by canvassing, subjective assertions lacking a grounding in policy, and unfounded accusations of bad faith.

The principal argument for keeping the article is that the topic meets the 'general notability guideline', our basic criteria for including a topic in Wikipedia as a standalone article. They contend that there are reliable sources which discuss the article topic in a cohesive fashion and that these are prominent enough within the scholarly literature that basing an article on them is not undue weight. In rebuttal of the arguments for deletion, editors in favour of keeping the article argued that it is normal for coverage of related topics (i.e. the individual incidents included in this article) to be duplicated across related articles; that if the title is problematic, it can be renamed rather than deleted; and that issues with the quality of the current version can be addressed through other processes. Many other points were raised (that deletion of the article has already been discussed, that a lot of work went into writing it, that if this article is deleted others should be too, that it has a high readership, that the deletion nomination is allegedly ideologically motivated, or an attempt at censorship) but we did not consider these to align with established policies and guidelines.

To the extent there were substantive attempts to engage between the two sides, the discussion centered on whether the references given in support of the article actually represented a significant, mainstream view in reliable sources, or were 'cherry-picked' examples from a non-significant, 'fringe' minority. A subsidiary debate concerned whether the sources presented were correctly interpreted. In our analysis, these questions represent the core of the dispute, and are critical to deciding whether the article should be deleted. Unfortunately, we can find no consensus on them, and consider it unlikely that further discussion in this forum will produce one.

Conclusions

In summary, the Wikipedia editing community has been unable to come to a consensus as to whether "mass killings under communist regimes" is a suitable encyclopaedic topic. While the raw headcount shows that a majority oppose deletion, considering the large number of poorly-argued comments, the unquantifiable but significant disruption caused by biased off-wiki coverage and canvassing, and most of all the failure of either camp to decisively refute the arguments of the other, we have reached the disappointing conclusion that we cannot call this a consensus to keep the article either.

Before this deletion discussion started, an attempt to mediate the disputes around this article was begun on the dispute resolution noticeboard (DRN). There was agreement across all the parties to that process that the current version of the article has significant content problems - observations echoed by many participants in this discussion, on both sides. We therefore strongly recommend that the DRN process be resumed and pick up the attempts at source analysis carried out in this discussion, which show promise in breaking the deadlock. If nothing else, the failure of more than 200 editors to reach any actionable consensus in this discussion shows that there is an urgent need to better define and refine the core elements of this dispute into a more manageable set of questions, if they are to be put to the wider editing community.

Signed:

18:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Notes
  1. ^ The discussion began on 22 November. Due to an oversight by the nominator, it was not listed on the daily log until 25 November, but this did not unduly lessen participation. It was closed for further comments while we prepared this statement on 29 November.

Mass killings under communist regimes

[edit]


AfDs for this article:
Mass killings under communist regimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

And under its previous name:

AfDs for this article:
Communist genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article begins: 

<!-- Introduction, criteria, and their criticism -->
Various authors have written about the events of 20th-century communist regimes, which have resulted in excess deaths, such as excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Some authors posit that there is a communist death toll, whose death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions

… that is, the title is not in bold, it is explicated. The title is a synthesis, a pat answer to any tangentially relatable proposition. The proposal is that the page be deleted, with any verifiable facts that are not borrowed from the other articles be moved there. Some notes, more as I remember, but will argue they support deletion: the article has existed in one form or another for many years; a series of previous AfDs have been proposed [10+ years ago]; that article traffic is significant; there is currently another open dispute resolution underway; personally have every reason to despise Communist regimes [as I define them]. ~ cygnis insignis 14:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a note that the lead has now been rewritten, 

Mass killings under communist regimes occurred throughout the 20th century. Death estimates vary widely, depending on the definitions of the deaths that are included in them. The higher estimates of mass killings account for the crimes that governments committed against civilians, including executions, the destruction of populations through man-made hunger and deaths that occurred during forced deportations and imprisonment, and deaths that resulted from forced labor.

In addition to "mass killings," terms that are used to define such killings include "democide", "politicide", "classicide", and "genocide."

updated ~ cygnis insignis 09:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as synthesis, and a violation of WP:NPOV policy. There is no doubt that 'communist regimes' as defined in the article have perpetrated many atrocities, but that isn't the issue. The question that needs to be asked is whether 'Mass killings under communist regimes' is a legitimate subject for an encyclopaedic article. And I would have to suggest that the article in question does little to justify that claim. A few writers have certainly seen it as a legitimate subject for discussion, but by and large, credible mainstream histography tends to neither lump all 'communist regimes' together as a subject for scrutiny when discussing 'mass killing' or to treat them as some sort of special case requiring unique analysis. Proper historiography discusses events in context, and without simplistic presuppositions that events are driven by any specific ideology. As the endless disputes on the article talk page make entirely clear, the article, and what exactly it is that it is supposed to be discussing, has long been a subject of contention amongst Wikipedia contributors. Raththan citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions, since sources discussing this are sparse, and generally on the fringes of histography. It is absolutely imperative that Wikipedia covers mass killings, regardless of who perpetuates them and what their motivations were, or are, but this article, with its loaded title and its endless wars over what exactly Wikipedia contributors can or cannot include as a 'killing' is exactly the wrong way to go about it. What Wikipedia should be doing is covering, in relevant articles about specific subjects, such atrocities, sourced to mainstream academia, and written in a manner that does not spoon-feed readers over-generalising and ideologically-driven conclusions that the sources concerned do not themselves support. Let the facts about individual events speak for themselves, and let readers decide for themselves whether they wish to blame 'communist regimes' for such crimes, or to instead blame them on the broader fallibilities of a humanity that was perpetuating such atrocities long before 'communists' arrived, and may well, if a more enlightened discourse isn't available, be perpetuating similar atrocities long after such 'regimes' have gone. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum to the above: a few hours ago, I wrote that "Rather than citing credible histographic sources on such subjects, the debate has instead revolved around exactly what constitutes a 'mass killing', or a 'communist regime'. Debate almost invariably focussed on contributors own arguments and opinions". For further evidence of how such endless going around in circles to arrive at a synthesised compromise can't work, one only need to look at this AfD discussion, and at how it is once again going over exactly the same ground, with the same mind-numbing consequences. I might dare to suggest that even if it were theoretically possible from Wikipedia to create a policy-compliant article on the subject matter (I still contend it isn't), per common sense, and possibly WP:IAR, we should give up trying, since in practice it is never going to happen. Or at lest, not until the last 'communist' and 'anti-communist' has been long dead, buried, and forgotten. There are plenty of other topics to write about, or even to waste time arguing over, and leaving this one for future generations might be best for all concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum 2: To expand further on my point regarding disscussing events in context, it clearly needs to be emphasised that in regard to the subject matter under discussion, Wikipedia already does this. For example, there is already an article on Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. There are articles on Political repression in the Soviet Union, along with multiple articles on Red Terror, Soviet famine of 1932–1933, Excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin and many more, covering events in the Soviet Union. Likewise, in regard to China Wikipedia has a article on the Chinese Civil War, on the Great Chinese Famine and the Great Leap Forward, a List of massacres in China, an article on Mass killings of landlords under Mao Zedong and many more. Our coverage of Cambodia likewise has many articles, starting with Cambodian genocide and the Killing Fields. We have similar multi-article content on East Germany, on Poland, on Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia, and other European topics. On Cuba, on North Korea, and Vietnam. On Afghanistan. On Ethiopia. And no doubt more besides - I've not done an exhaustive search by any means. None of those articles are being proposed for deletion, and it would be grossly improper, in my opinion, to do so. Some articles are better than others. A few probably require significant work to bring up to the standards that such significant topics deserve. My objection is not to covering any of these topics, it is the way this one specific article has done so: by focussing on a simplistic one-dimensional analysis of 'communism', and on arguments put forward by proponents of this one-dimensional analysis, it has decontextualised everything to an extent that the victims have become mere statistics to be argued over endlessly by a few Wikipedia contributors trying to reach a 'compromise' that can never come - or if it ever does, can only be arrived at by synthesis built around the contrubutors own opinions rather than anything the 'reliable sources' we are supposed to be reflecting have to say. The article we are discussing here is based on a questionable premise, is based around the opinions of a narrow few writers, and is constructed in a manner that can never give the proper in-depth perspectives that the events being discussed - and the victims of such events - deserve. Wikipedia can do better than this - by covering events properly, rather than treating them as mere data in a facile numbers game. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a lot of other articles. That's not a reason for deletion. This article serves two purposes, both as summary article that links these other articles together and also to represent what RS discuss in regard to the common causes, which isn't addressed in the individual articles. When a reader searches "communist mass killings" where should they be directed? Clearly this article serves as an entry point to explore all those other articles. Readers will see mass killing numbers on news sites, blogs, etc, so what better place to explain to reader the true situation via this article. Any issue with respect to consistency is a content issue best resolved via DR, not AfD. --Nug (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
summary style requires that each section should be a summary of each daughter article. Obviously, the overall context is also supposed to be adequate. Are you sure that is the case for, e.g. Great Chinese famine?
And, do you really think that by pushing outdated and obviously false Rummel's data, the article provides a reader with a correct information? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in sum per WP:SYNTH, as explained in some great detail in the nom, the above !vote, the long talk page discussions, and the prior AFDs. I am looking for multiple RS that give significant coverage to (1) "mass killings" (and not "excess deaths" or anything else) under (2) "communist regimes" (and not "Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot"; not some communist regimes, not "totalitarian states", but "communist regimes"). I do no believe there is enough RS that exists that covers this topic. Rather, the article is based on sources that talk about death in communist regimes generally, or mass killings by specific regimes that called themselves communist (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot). But to combine it by ideology, without sources that explicitly do so, is SYNTH. At bottom, the view that the ideology of communism is somehow inherently violent is WP:FRINGE anti-communist POV pushing. Levivich 15:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I think that there are some of these sources listed below in the discussion. I also don't think that materials which primarily focus on Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot as the largest mass killings under communist regimes are out of line; the Great Purge, Cultural Revolution, and Cambodian Genocide are probably the three largest examples of this phenomenon. Reasonable sources would probably put these in the forefront and the focus of the most of their discussion given that they are the largest in scope. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's fit the most widely accepted definition of mass killing (50,000 killings within five years), so your arguments support a comparative analysis of those three regimes only, as is done by Karlsson 2008. Davide King (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you telling me that North Korea is not somehow engaged in mass killings through starvation? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Are you telling me there is consensus among scholars that man-made famines are mass killings? This is contradicted even by the long-standing version of the article having a section devoted to this. In Red Holocaust, Steven Rosefielde does discuss North Korea, alongside Vietnam and the Big Three, but he considers them to be excess or mass mortality events, not mass killings, compare "Premature Deaths: Russia's Radical Economic Transition in Soviet Perspective". Davide King (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That North Korea is even 'communist' in any meaningful sense is a subject of frequent debate, given its deviation from orthodox Stalinism and towards a militarised ultranationalist quasi-religious ideology (Juche). They don't claim to be 'communist' any more, and Wikipedia certainly shouldn't simply take at face value assertions that they are. Not if the object of that exercise is to lump them together with other regimes just to add to the a total concocted according to arbitrary criteria by Wikipedia contributors. The crimes of the North Korean state need to be described in context, in appropriate articles, rather than thrown out of context into an article that refuses to acknowledge the complex issues and questionable premises it is built around. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • If you want to exclude the killings by North Korea after they stopped calling themselves Communist, then surely that would imply that the killings by North Korea when it was still Communist should be taken into account. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nice straw man there. I was responding to Mikehawk10's post linking to a 2012 article describing "State-Induced Famine and Penal Starvation in North Korea", which he cited as evidence that north Koriea is still "engaged in mass killings through starvation". An article which quite explicitly discusses current anything-but-communist Juche ideology in North Korea, details its official introduction in 1970, and describes it as " perpetuat[ing] a mythology that its hereditary rulers represent “the will of both heaven and earth". Of course the crimes of the North Korean political establishment, and of their 'hereditary rulers' should be 'taken into account'. In articles that actually put it into context, rather than in a rag-bag conconction cobbled together from disparate sources according to arbitrary critera arrived at (or rather endlessly argued over) by the few Wikipedia contributors willing to engage in this decade-plus-long exercise in POV-pushing and synthesis. Any proper dicussion of North Korea needs to describe its history, and the broader context in which its crimes could be perpetuated, rather than to engage in an exercise in propaganda-by-numbers that reduces the victims to a points score on a leaderboard. That is what Wikipedia articles on the subject should be doing, and what the article being discussed here can never do, built as it is around the obvious premise that readers are too stupid to figure out for themselves who the bad guys are without them being spoon-fed decontextualised pap that reduces it all to 'communism is evil'. And thus conveniently fails to note that evil has been and is being done by communists (or people who describe themselves as such), non-communists, anti-communists, and people who's claims to being communist change as and when it suits their interests, as long as they can stay in charge, in heaven and on earth. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • That Juche is not communist anymore b/c the 2nd NK despot declared it isn't does not pass the laugh test. Of course apologists for Communism of the "No True Scotsman" variety will always come back to this, to say NK is not Communist. But of course, the big payoff is that if you succeed in classing out the NK's as "not Communist" then you get to take off a couple of million snuffed human lives from the global Communist butcher's bill. A grotesque business this is, of trying to define-out Communist flavours.XavierItzm (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich, if you didn't know already, you're in The Telegraph:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a notable topic and there are enough WP:RS sources out there written on the subject: most notable probably the books on the subject Red Holocaust (2009 book), The Black Book of Communism (published by Routledge and Harvard University Press respectively). Also Helen Fein's chapter on Soviet and Communist Genocides and Democide, the chapter Communist mass killings by Benjamin Valentino and Alex Bellamy’s chapter Communist Atrocities where he discusses the massacre of millions by communist regimes during the Cold War. R. J. Rummel also makes the the connection between communist regime type and mass killings (which he terms communist democide) in his widely cited Death by Government. Rummel has had some critics, his connection of regime type and numbers is defended by Wayman&Tago. Not to mention usual searches: "Communist genocide" alone gives 441 returns on google books and 75 on google scholar. The topic is certainly meets WP:GNG and the article was titled "Mass killings under Communist regimes" as a compromise descriptive title derived via consensus, see Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/FAQ —Nug (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum, these reasons have been addressed else where on the page, adding here so they are not lost in the noise:
      • "The topic is SYNTH": that argument is truly deprecated when the topic becomes a university course, according to this published syllabus, because WP:SYNTH states: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source
      • "The title is SYNTH": This is a content issue best discussed via WP:MOVEREQ. The title is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC: ”However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources.”
        The terms "Mass killings" and "communist regimes" are both terms commonly used in the sources related to the topic, with 1090 hits for “mass killings” compared with 108 hits for “excess deaths”, for example.
      • "The authors/books (Valentino/Black Book, etc) have their own articles, so why do we need this article": that's like arguing we have The Communist Manifesto so why do we need an article on Marxism.
      • "The article is a POV/content fork": The claim is that this article is a fork of the various sub-articles, as there is no consistency. The article intends to serves two purposes, both as summary article that links these other sub-articles together and also to represent what RS discuss in regard to the common causes, which isn't addressed in the individual sub-articles. The Great Chinese Famine is often cited, so let's examine that:
  1. Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes#Great_Leap_Forward_and_the_Great_Chinese_Famine is a single paragraph, with three sentences mentioning the Great Leap Forward as cause, two sentences about the death toll, and two sentences about Mao’s personal culpability.
  2. Great Chinese Famine has a section on causes, giving most weight to Great_Chinese_Famine#Great_Leap_Forward, with smaller subsections Great_Chinese_Famine#More_policies_from_the_central_government and Great_Chinese_Famine#Power_relations_in_local_governments (which are all communist regime related anyway) and a fourth subsection Great_Chinese_Famine#Natural_disasters.
There isn't any egregious "unfixable POVFORK" issue here, adding phrase about other government causes and a sentence about natural disaster would fix it, there may be other fixes in the sub-article too. It’s not huge.
More to follow, --Nug (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, let's see.
    • We all can discriminate blue and black, and, since The Black Book of Communism in your post is blue, it already has its own article. What is a reason to have two articles on the same subject? Our policy allows only a very limited number of exceptions;
    • Similarly, Red Holocaust (2009 book) already has its own article. What is a reason to have another one? In addition, Rosefielde writes not about "Communist mass killings" as a separate topic, but mostly about three separate cases (Pol Pot, Stalin. Mao). We already have articles about each of those events, so this article provides no additional information, but contains a lot of synthesis.
    • Fein does not separate all mass killings in Communist states into one category. In addition, she does not include the most deadly events (famine) into the "Communust genocide" category. In other words, she is writing only about a small subset of events described in the article that we discuss. See Mass killing article for Fein's database of genopoliticides.
    • As I already explained, Valentino's core idea is that regime type is not a good predictor of mass killing's onset, so there is no significant linkage between mass killings and regime type. The full name of the chapter of his book is "Communist mass killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" and it includes the analysis of just three cases. Valentino is not making generalizations that you ascribe to him. A note to the closing admin This information has already been explained to Nug previously, but he pretends he never heard it.
    • Instead of this search, which yields too many non-scholarly sources, you were supposed to do this search. The first reference is to the article by Dulic, which contains a severe criticism of Rummel's methodology.
    • What you forgot to do is this and that. It is easy to see that the search returns references mostly to Wikipedia mirrors or the article that cite Wikipedia. That means the current article has a great potential for citogenesis. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will let Paul Siebert address most of those points because I think they can explain it better our disagreement, but there is something about the Great Chinese Famine that may be relavant. You do not seem to have noticed that for the Great Chinese Famine MKuCR uses Valentino (not a Chinese specialist) and Dikötter (who has been criticized by many Chinese specialists), both of which can be used but are clearly minority/not the best source to use. Ó Gráda (famine specialist) is the best source so why he is not used? We are using Newsweek but not Ó Gráda. Perhaps because he does not describe the event as a mass killing, or MKuCR, and does not link it to communism generally; hence by adding him it would be OR/SYNTH; yet, by not adding him we are violating NPOV (which is not negotiable) of presenting minority and/or non-specialist views as majority. Surely, if it is a summary style as you claim, we should be relying on country experts and specialists, who are the best sources for this, and the majority views, which do not engage in ideological body-counting and/or making generalizations, and are more nuanced in keeping in mind the societal context. Davide King (talk) 01:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just wanted to comment that this is a very bad argument. Finding sources that use the phrase "[adjective] genocide", or similar terms, is extremely easy. Besides "Communist genocide", there are also hundreds of Google Books results for "Capitalist genocide" [7], "Conservative genocide" [8], "Liberal genocide" [9], "Republican genocide" [10], "Democratic genocide" [11], "Right-wing genocide" [12], "Left-wing genocide" [13], or even (to use a different kind of adjective) "European genocide" [14]. But Wikipedia doesn't have a page called Mass killings in Europe for example, despite the fact that mass killings certainly HAVE happened in Europe and there are even books about them. Like this one for instance: "The Holocaust and Genocides in Europe" [15] (a book grouping together the Holocaust, the Armenian Genocide, mass killings in the Soviet Union, and the genocides in the former Yugoslavia). You can find scholars grouping together genocides and mass killings in all sorts of ways: by ideology, by continent, by cultural area, by religion, by historical period, and so on. The fact that a few have grouped Communist mass killings together is as relevant as the fact that others have grouped European mass killings together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1007:B10A:57E1:9F22:2779:2686:A340 (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first source you cite is a chapter of a book entitled 'Genocide: A Sociological Perspective', and as such rather illustrates my point regarding how mass killings are generally discussed in academia - mass killing as a general topic, rather than one partitioned by the ideology of the perpetrators. As for Valentino and Rummel, these are the same authors that have been repeatedly cited for many years in discussions over the disputed article, and the fact that they are being cited yet again surely illustrates just how isolated from mainstream historiography they have become. And as for what the article FAQ says, that isn't even remotely relevant to an AfD discussion, for far too many reasons to be worth explaining... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Admin: User:Levivich, who !voted to delete, appears to be blocking any attempts to improve the article[16]. It is entirely permissible for those who support keep to attempt to improve the article while it is under AfD. On the other hand, edits during an AfD by those who support deletion is disruptive as it can be construed as WP:GAME to make an article worse to facilitate deletion. --Nug (talk) 21:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't disrupt this discussion with claims about other contributor's behaviour elsewhere. Raise it at ANI or whatever if you like, but not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a valid concern that is correctly called out here on what is and is not permissible. --Nug (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it is a 'valid concern', it would surely make more sense to raise it somewhere where an admin might see it in a timely fashion. Though before doing that, I'd recommend reading up on talk page procedure, and on who is or isn't permitted to edit articles being discussed at AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting to a lead from two months ago, which has serious VERIFY issues (stating all events were mass killings as fact, etc.), and has been acknowledged as problematic at WP:DRNMKUCR, are by no means an 'improvement.' Plus, the AfD is about this stable version, and it makes no sense whatsoever to edit while the AfD is ongoing. Davide King (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD isn't about any specific 'version'. It is about whether the topic (if there actually is one, outside of Wikipedia and a few marginal writers) should have an article at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but I wanted to point out that is the current version addressed in the AfD and we should not edit the article in the meantime, and is my view that you are correct and Nug did a wrong thing by doing that edit/revert, with the AfD ongoing. Davide King (talk) 22:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: I'll give a full response after you finish a work with your addendum. Meanwhile, let me tell you that if you present such "sources" as Sperling's course as an argument, that just confirms my thesis that you no strong arguments and source to support your claim.
Thus, a brief look at the Clark University's website shows that Sperling is an expert in Putin's Russia, and she authored no publications on Communism, which raises a question bout her expertise in that topic. I doubt an abstract of a course is a reliable source for such an article as this one. To seriously propose this source as a core source in such a high traffic article means to discredit Wikipedia, and an indication of a desperate luck of good sources for that topic. And, I love see a plural "universities" in your post.
However, I am grateful to you for presenting so weak sources and arguments. That significantly facilitates by job.
I can analyze (and debunk) you other evidences too, but I give you a chance to re-work them and make more logical and well substantiated. I'll return in a couple of days and see what you presented. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Not 'voting' yet, see my rebuke of Nug's here. Davide King (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC) One of the reasons why such an article has been kept for so long (three no consensus, two keep) is perhaps because "per source" arguments are taken too much at face value, and in my link I will show they do not support MKuCR and/or misread, failing basic VERIFY, which is even worse than NPOV. [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed discussion about suspending AfD
  • I propose to suspend this discussion This article is a subject of DR. It seems we should respect the time and efforts of the DR discussion's participants. I already notified them, and proposed to develop a joint position about that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but is there anything in Wikipedia policy or practice that suggests that particular contributors can 'suspend' an AfD discussion while they debate things amongst themselves? If there is, I don't think I've ever come across it, and frankly, in this particular context - where the same going-around-in-circles debate has been going on for years and getting nowhere - would have to suggest that this would be entirely inappropriate. Let the broader community make a decision, as they do with every other deletion debate, and find another forum for arguing eternally amongst yourselves afterwards if that is what you really wish to do. Nobody owns this article, and nobody has the right to exclude outsiders from debate on this long-standing and contentious article, or any other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I am not "suspending" this AfD. My post is a friendly request to suspend it. There are two reasons for that.
  • First, as a participant of the DR process, I am not in a position to express my opinion here. I think, that is the case for other DR participants too. Therefore, we all become removed from this AfD process, and we should either suspend the DR (and wait for this AfD's outcome), or vise versa.
  • Second, my opinion strongly depends on the course of development of the DR discussion. Depending on that, I can present either strong arguments in support of deletion, or equally strong arguments in support of keeping this article. However, I cannot do that right now, because the DR process in in progress.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsed not due to claims to authority but simple for readability purpose and to not ruin the AfD, which is indeed a possible and good solution. AfD is open, has never been put on hold, and this should not discourage other users; it is simply a discussion about how to act in light of the DRN.

While I can understand and see AnyTheGrump's frustration, and they are right on this, Siebert is also right. We all may agree to put this on hold until the moderator's next comment — if they think Cloud200 and Nug have exhausted their arguments and did not persuade them that a rewrite is extreme, and AfD could be a solution, we may try and see if consensus finally changed towards deletion; or we may have a RfC about the topic first (we need to agree on the main topic; if we cannot agree, AfD is the natural next step); if consensus has really shifted towards deletion, then this AfD should probably go ahead to certify it.

Davide King (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC) Edited to clarify. Davide King (talk) 20:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Siebert and I have been the biggest proponents of recognization of such issues (e.g. we were the main users who endless argued for such problems, which have now been recognized by the moderator and simply ignored by the other side), and have proposed deletion if such issues simply cannot be solved, so I think your comments apply more to those who stubbornly reject them and I am really tired of debating them.

I can also see Siebert's argument for suspending this, perhaps waiting for the moderator's next comment; perhaps now there may be consensus for deletion, which does not preclude a NPOV rewrite with a better defined and clear topic, without OR/SYNTH; considering the other side has continued to reject that there are problems, which have been recognized by the moderator, there really cannot be any further rational discussion there; the next round should be how to fix the issues, and deletion can be a solution, since Siebert and I have been proponents of a rewrite — that can be achieved by either deleting the article first, or having the moderator give the green light for a rewrite or a RfC about a rewrite. Still, we (I mean all of us) may agree to put this in hold until the moderator's next round, especially if they find the other's side arguments not persuasive.

Davide King (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly is 'we' , and on what authority can anyone 'put this on hold'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See my previous post Paul Siebert (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, well see mine, and take note that I consider this attempt to hijack an AfD by participants in a colossal time-sink to be improper, and that I also consider the use of fancy formatting and collapes text as a claim to authority to be even more so. Unless and until this AfD is closed according to accepted Wikipedia procedure, it will remain open, and any further attempts at out-of-process disruption are likely to be reported as such. Either participate in the AfD in the proper manner, or go away and argue amongst yourselves - we don't need further juvenile Wikilawyering time-sinks here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who exactly is "we"? Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, there is a third reason to suspend it. I suspect many users may argue that the article may undergo a significant change as a result of the ongoing DR, and, before making a decision about deletion, it is desirable to see what exactly is proposed to delete. Therefore, if you don't want your AfD to be closed as premature, I suggest you to wait for the DR's outcome. If the DR will fail to find any common solution, that will be a strong argument in favour of deletion (for one interim conclusion of this DR is: all parties agree that the article has severe problems, and if the parties fail to come to any positive consensus, that means these problems are unlikely to be resolved). In contrast, if we appear to be capable of proposing some mutually acceptable solution, that will be a strong argument to keep the article. That is why it is important to wait for DR's outcome. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to any Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that an AfD can be suspended while a subset of contributors attempt (yet again, after over a decade) to come to a 'consensus' that the broader community is under no obligation to comply with anyway. And for the record, it isn't 'my' AfD. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about that. AFDs are decided by the notability of the topic, not the state of the article. The question is whether any article at the title "Mass killings under communist regimes" can be written, at all. My !voting delete means I don't think there is any article that should exist at that title (because no sources support that particular topic). Levivich 19:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since Nug !voted (I am not sure how correct that is, since the DRN is still ongoing, albeit it has been moved at WP:DRNMKUCR; it needs to be put on hold). I would ask if Robert McClenon, provided Cloud200 and Siebert also agree to put the DRN on hold and move forward with the AfD, could be the moderator/closure of this AfD, as they have come to know the article's issues and arguments from both sides; they may take a break from reading our stuff, and simply taking the time to summarize closure when everything is done.

Davide King (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paul Siebert - First, I have changed your heading Comments from second-level to fourth-level. The title of an AFD is itself a third-level heading in the list of AFDs, so that a second-level heading confuses the log. You were not expected to know that. Second, I wrote, about sixteen hours ago, "if they think that an AFD is in order at this time, they might as well initiate it now, and I will put this DRN on hold again." I was referring to a participant in the DRN, but my comment had to do with any nominator. I will suspend the DRN. An AFD takes precedence over all other forms of content dispute resolution. I have already said that the DRN may last a few months. The AFD will run for one to three weeks. The possibility of improving the article can and should be discussed in the AFD. I will suspend the DRN, which is more feasible than suspending the AFD for a few months. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Davide King - I will put the DRN on hold. I am not an administrator and will not close the AFD, but I will observe and comment in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense and I understand, thank you for all your effort. Davide King (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I must say that the current version of the article appears to be in a rather sorry state, but the topic easily passes WP:GNG. This version of the article from January 2021 appears to be significantly better with the exception of the lead being rather short. In any case, the coverage in other sources contained in that January 2021 version is much more than enough for notability of the topic. And, since GNG is based on substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. I'll give three:
Many more sources are listed above, in the article currently, and are available more generally. Per WP:SOURCETYPES, [w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. I really am shocked at the lack of a WP:BEFORE on this; the topic clearly passes WP:GNG to the extent that a plenitude of high-quality academic works reference it. And, the fact that the article has been muddled up and its quality has been degraded over the past ten months or so isn't a valid deletion reason. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, see here for my analysis of sources as to how they do not, in fact, support the currently structure article. Take a look at possible topic's restructuring or rewrite, such as this one, or the possibility of turning this article into a broad and general analysis of mass killings in the 20th century, which is precisely what most genocide scholars do, rather than categorize it by political ideology, which is OR/SYNTH, and is not what sources do, other than Rummel. Davide King (talk) 23:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC) As noted by Levivich here, those sources are not WP:SIGCOV of MKuCR but of different topics. [Edited to add] Davide King (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are serious problems with your rationale.
First, Courtois views are already described in Black Book of Communism article. The policy requires us to have just one article on a given subject should.
Second. The chapter of the Valentino's book discuss not "Communist mass killings" as a separate category, but mass killings in Stalin's USSR, Pol Pol's Cambodia and Mao's China. The main conclusion of the author's analysis of mass killings (in general, not only of those three cases) is: regime type does not matter, the main reason of mass killing is leader's personality. In other words, the key author's point is that there is no intrinsically murderous regime types, and by eliminating certain leaders from power it is possible to convert a murderous regime into non-murderous without considerable changes in its political structure.
Third. I am familiar with some Fein's works, and never saw that she outlined Communist mass killings/democide as a separate category. Sometimes, she may group them together, but that does not imply much. I also saw many authors group all genocides in Asia (communist and non-communist), does it mean we have to have the article about that too? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean like Genocides in central Africa? I do think that if there's a broad set of scholars who are presenting a bunch of historical events together as a related group that our encyclopedia should reflect that group, and include relevant criticism of that grouping. Should we delete all articles because they involve grouping? The answer is yes if we're making the group ourselves, but we're simply not doing so here; the grouping of mass killings committed by communist regimes is indeed the subject of scholarly study and the subject of many lengthy works. If scholars debate the relationship between regime type and the propensity to commit mass killings, then that might well be worth including. However, we should not pretend that there aren't a substantial amount of scholars that group things this way. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am curious about Siebert's response, and I prefer you discuss this with him, but if I understand you correctly — Genocides in central Africa is not a good example to bring in support of MKuCR (if that is what you meant to prove), considering the same tags since 2018. By giving undue WEIGHT to those scholars who do the grouping, even though has been criticized by other scholars, and recognized by Robert McClenon at WP:DRNMKUCR, we are ... well, giving undue weight to those who the grouping (Courtois, Rummel) as if it was a scholarly consensus. I support a grouping under this topic, which would keep the article but rewrite it and changing the name, e.g. Communist state and mass killing, discussing the link, not the events, which can simply be linked when mentioned. Davide King (talk) 01:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10:, that is a reasonable argument. To decide if it is strong, we need to figure out the following: (i) check how many good sources discuss, e.g. genocides in Africa as a separate category, (ii) check how many sources discuss separate African genocides in a context of different events, (iii) check how many sources discuss each genocide separately, without references to the group (i) sources. If the group iii sources are majority, there is no reason for discussing genocides in Africa as a single group. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the notion that WP:NPOVFACT somehow precludes The Black Book of Communism from being cited elsewhere on Wikipedia for use for facts is rather strange. That book's article isn't a splinter of an article regarding mass killings under communist regimes, but instead is an article on a notable book. We don't have to describe literally every point of the book in detail, but the argument that you're making in that respect would seem to indicate that books that have their own articles should be extremely sparingly used for facts elsewhere; I see no basis in policy for that sort of claim. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that work is not even about MKuCR. According to historian Andrzej Paczkowski [who gave a positive review], only Courtois made the comparison between Communism and Nazism, while the other sections of the book "are, in effect, narrowly focused monographs, which do not pretend to offer overarching explanations." Paczkowski wonders whether it can be applied "the same standard of judgment to, on the one hand, an ideology that was destructive at its core, that openly planned genocide, and that had an agenda of aggression against all neighboring (and not just neighboring) states, and, on the other hand, an ideology that seemed clearly the opposite, that was based on the secular desire of humanity to achieve equality and social justice, and that promised a great leap of forward into freedom", and states that while a good question, it is hardly new and inappropriate because The Black Book of Communism is not "about communism as an ideology or even about communism as a state-building phenomenon." (Paczkowski 2001) Davide King (talk) 01:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOVFACT does not preclude citing. The Black book article reproduces main points of Courtois' introduction. I see no problem to use that book as a source in Wikipedia, but it must be done in accordance with NPOV. Concretely, the very controversial nature of this source must be clear from the context. Currently, it is not. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, please, keep in mind that your arguments refer to WP:V, whereas the main reasons for deletion is NPOV/NOR violations. I suspect the closing admin will ignore your vote. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the closing admin will realize that my explicit references to WP:GNG are indeed references to WP:GNG, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent RS. My point in bringing up the the RS guideline is perfectly in line with the GNG claim. What are you talking about, Paul Siebert, when you say the closing admin will ignore this argument? Are they supposed to ignore GNG-based arguments? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am talking about the following: if the article is nominated for deletion because it has severe NPOV/NOR problems, voting to "keep" because the topic is notable is neither productive nor correct.
With regard to general notability, take a look at this and that. Yes, some (most) events described in this article are quite notable. However, they already have their own WP articles. Therefore, the question is how notable is the narrative that links ALL those events together under a category "Communist mass killings" or variations thereof? The answer is: not at all. There are few books (most of them already have their own WP articles) and several newspaper/magazine articles. Besides that, various authors do comparative analysis of Stalinism and Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism, Cambodian and Rwandian genocides, and so on, but virtually nobody combines all mass mortality events (including war, famine and disease deaths) in all Communist states in a single category and provide universal explanations. Even worse, attempts to propose such a concept face severe criticism, which is really notable. The fact that the article says almost nothing about that is an additional proof of its non-neutrality. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect, my argument is that the narrative that links those events together under the category of communist mass killings is exactly what I think these sources say. You're wholly ignoring that claim; I'm saying that this is not WP:OR because there are indeed scholarly works that link them together and provide that historiography. In other words, the topic is notable owing to significant coverage from multiple reliable independent sources. It's not Wikipedia making the topic up in this article. Please read my argument before dismissing it all as me confusing core Wikipedia policies that I have the competence to understand the difference between. My response to the NOR arguments is to bring up sources that do exactly the sort of thing that this article sets out to do. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is mostly wrong. Actually, virtually no sources say that. They make partial claims, and the article combines them in such a way that an impression is created that its content is well sourced. Thus:
Valentino does not link Communism and mass killings; moreover, he concludes that majority of Communist regimes were not engaged in mass killings;
Fein does not include the most deadly events in the "mass killing" category, and she makes no strong link between Communism and mass killing;
Rosefielde focuses on three regimes only. He makes no generalization (and he is an expert in Russia mostly);
If you analyse other authors, you will come to similar conclusions: each of them discuss either a broader or more narrow category, but virtually none of them speaks about "Communist mass killings" as a separate topic. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The narrative is, in fact, the "victims of communism" narrative, which is another topic and is a NPOV version (although the name may appear to be POV, it is a COMMON NAME) of MKuCR (Ghodsee 2014, Neumayer 2017, Neumayer 2020, Dujisin 2021). Davide King (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert and Davide King: I guess we just read the literature differently. It seems like there's a real grouping that's relatively mainstream where the mass killings committed by Communist states is discussed together. There are chapters of recently published books dedicated to Communist atrocities during the cold war, which would be even more expansive than the current title of this article would have us include. And, it's not the true usefulness of a characterization that makes an article worthwhile, it's that a topic has drawn enough coverage as a topic (this is why we have articles like race and intelligence that have each repeatedly survived deletion efforts). Anyhow, I don't see any real way to read the literature except to say that this grouping is a real thing that's covered in great depth by multiple reliable independent academic sources. Unless there is some construction of the phrase "mass killings under Communist regimes" that doesn't say that the topic is "the group of mass killings that were committed by a communist regime"—which would be the natural reading of the descriptive title—I don't see any way to go with any option but keep. If there are specific content issues regarding scope, then we should recall deletion is not cleanup and it shouldn't be used to wage content disputes.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I obviously disagree but I think Siebert can explain this better than I could, and I try to move on from conflict to compromise. Can you at least even consider as a possibility a rewrite/restructing under this topic as summarized by Siebert? Because it is not as easy as 'Keep'–'Delete' — the article could be easily kept if such issues were addressed. As long as Mass killing, and other articles, and MKuCR contradict each other, such issues will not be solved, and MKuCR will remain a giant NPOV/OR/SYNTH mess in light of such contradictions. Davide King (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: Yes, I am reading literature more attentively. Look, your source (Bellamy) says: " A conservative estimate would put the number of civilians deliberately killed by communist regimes after the Second World War between 6.7 million and 15.5 million, with the real figure probably much higher." Obviously, since no large scale mass killing (>50,000) took place in USSR during Cold war (and no mass killings after 1953), this figure includes Cambodian genocide, Chinese civil war (including Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries), Chinese Cultural revolution, Afghan war, and few other events. Obviously, Great Chinese famine is not included, otherwise the figure would be >50 million.
That is close to what I say: Bellamy says quite non-contraversial things, namely, that there were mass killings in Communist states. However, teh claim he is making is much less expansive then the claim made in the article that we are discussing.
If you looked at the last AfD, which was in 2010, you may notice that I raised several concerns and proposed a plan to fix those problems. I didn't vote for deletion 11 years ago. And what happened during those 11 years? The situation became worse. That is why I am coming to a conclusion that any attempts to fix problems face efficient opposition, and it is quite possible that deletion may be a solution. I haven't voted yet, but I am becoming more and more convinced that deletion may be the only possible solution. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Paul, you have dominated the talk page discussion in the last 11 years, the state of the article is in large measure due to your guidance over the years. --Nug (talk) 04:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those sources also aren't WP:SIGCOV of this topic, "mass killings under communist regimes", they are SIGCOV of different topics. "Keep" voters in this and prior AFDs are pointing to sources about other things and suggesting they are about "mass killings under communist regimes". I'm asking for page citations where someone uses the phrase "mass killings" and "communist regimes" and devotes significant coverage to the connection between the two. Things like, for example, Soviet+genocide or China+famine are not the same as mass killings+communist regimes. Levivich 01:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I will note, Bellamy actually does articulate that there are unique things about mass killings under communist regimes, in his paper published by published in Human Rights Quarterly shows. The text from the bottom paragraph on page 949 up until the sentence The end of the Cold War helped persuade the world’s remaining communist governments to shift away from the communist doctrine of selective extermination first developed and practiced by Stalin on page 952 is particularly illustrative of this. Bellamy sees the killings as a communist doctrine in states practicing real socialism, not as something that's accidentally occurred under communist regimes. In fact, this seems to be exactly the sort of claim that affirms that this sort of grouping is a topic that's discussed in academic literature. — Mhawk10 (talk) 07:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you arguing that sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of genocide committed by communist regimes as a group are not actually providing significant coverage of mass killings? I'm a bit confused here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: Sources that provide SIGCOV of a genocide committed by a government that called itself communist is not the same thing as sources providing SIGCOV of mass killings under communist regimes. Same with sources that provide SIGCOV of three such governments. The key words in the title, and thus the scope, are "mass killing" and "communist regime". A comparison of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot is not the same thing as "communist regime". Famine caused by poor policies is not the same as "mass killing". Etc. Levivich 03:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are not, two out of those sources are providing a coverage of a few Communist regimes out of dozens and dozens. The other, The Black Book of Communism, is not about MKuCR. Davide King (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again? We've been through this several times already. Well sourced, notable etc etc etc. Volunteer Marek 23:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are too experienced user to pretend you don't understand that. Conflating WP:V with WP:NPOV/NOR is unacceptable. And, by the way, the article managed to completely distort even the core source it is based upon (Valentino's "Final solutions"), so there are severe problems with WP:V too. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youre right, I am an experienced editor and as such I know - and you should too - that WP:NPOV concerns even if justified (and they’re not, here) are NOT grounds for deletion. WP:NOTABILITY is. We’ve been through this sooooo many times by now that it’s exasperating that the same fallacious arguments that were made TWELVE YEARS AGO are still being repeated simply because some editors just WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT the topic of this article. Volunteer Marek 01:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem with this article is that it's entirely indiscriminate, the holodomor, Tiananman square, the killing Fields, and 5,000 deaths in Cuba over twenty years are not all the same. Separately the death toll got East German is 80k-100k, unless you read the second paragraph where it could just be 40k. A symptom of this having become a giant coatrack. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't the solution to it being that the article be written in summary style and only lump in the mass killings referred to in reliable sources as part of the group? I don't think that improving the article's content as an alternative to deletion would be better if the topic itself is notable. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one possibility that were discussing during the suspended DR. The problem is that some users claim that the article is already a summary style article, and no serious changes are necessary. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it likely that a ladder will be removed, than meaningful improvements will be made to this article. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I briefly looked through the previous AfD discussion, and, a comparison of the quality of arguments shows that the current discussion is very superficial. Maybe, it makes sense to summarize the arguments of the previous AfD and check how the situation has changed during last 10 years? If the situation improved, this AfD should be speedy closed. In contrast, if it has worsened, and the problems outlined 11 years ago became even more severe, we should seriously think about the deletion. If you agree, I can summarize this section and add the analysis of the article's current state. Keeping in mind that the closing admin acknowledged serious problems with the article (it its 2010 version), we cannot just say "The article survived three AfDs, so there is nothing here to discuss." That is not correct. If people do not mind, I can perform the analysis of the last AfD discussion and outline fresh facts, sources and changes that may serve as pro et contra for deletion. It may take several days. If somebody wants to join me, please, let me know.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed for readability and preservation. Full rationale at less than 4,000 words sandbox.
The closure does not need to read it fully if they are satisfied by the first part (i.e. 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3), which is short enough.

POV fork (deliberately created to avoid a neutral point of view (including undue weight), often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts) and coatrack (fails to give a truthful impression of the subject), as no other solution, after two-year-long discussions, is possible to solve the NPOV, OR/SYNTH, WEIGHT, and even VERIFY issues (e.g. contradiction with Mass killing and all individual events that are not described as mass killings by majority sources, excess deaths and mass mortality events conflated as mass killings, etc.), since the 'Keep' side has refused attempts at rewrite, lack of consensus around the topic, and some even refusing to acknowledge any issue despite recognition from the moderator at WP:DRNMKUCR. Here, C.J. Griffin gave an accurate and valid summary of issues.

The article takes an alleged Communist genocide/mass killing concept from Mann, Straus (who is merely reviewing rather than proposing the concept), and Valentino, even though the first is about classicide, the second is about genocide in general, and the third is a chapter about genocides and mass killings in the 20th century, then listing all mass killings under Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pol, adding all excess deaths under all Communist regimes, even as only few scholars and from one side (Courtois, Rummel) list all non-combatant victims (famines, wars, etc.), to suggest all those are mass killings and/or victims of communism (the main culprit, which is contrary to Valentino's view of leaders, not regime type, being the main culprit), its more accurate title that, however, does not really solve all those issues I have highlighted.

I have no prejudice in a future rewrite that is NPOV, in full respect of our policies and guidelines (NPOV is not negotiable), and a clearly agreed and defined topic, such as this one. Merely stating "per source" does not mean anything, especially if you do not address our legitimate concerns (as can be seen in my in-depth analysis at sandbox), as set by precedent at Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence. Other possibilities include a general article about mass killings, or during the 20th century, as a spin-off of Mass killing. I also accept those three proposals here as possible solutions other than deletion but only if the article is completely rewritten/restructured per WP:BLOWITUP (not a policy but an especially relevant essay for this article and its problems), e.g. if the closure give the green light to such rewrite, 'Keep' side must be collaborative and accept such possibility.

Addendum — "per sources" arguments must not be taken at face value due to a sourcing problem as summarized here by Siebert (see also this and this) and the issue described here in the lack of agreement about the main topic. Thanks to Hemiauchenia for pointing out here that Ashkenazi Jewish intelligence is a good precedent in that the same, if not very similar, rationale for 'Delete' applies here, and I hope the closer here will also not take "'keep' opinions merely reply 'but it's notable' [or there are sources], ... " at face value. This is not a 'voting', as Wikipedia is not a democracy, so rational arguments and their strength, backed by sources (e.g. as I did to show Communist grouping is controversial) should be seen as the most valuable, irregardless if it is to 'Keep' and/or 'Delete', in weighting it. As noted there, "[t]he 'keep' side would instead have needed to show that the alleged quality problems either don't exist or can be relatively easily fixed by editing; and most of them did not attempt to make this argument." None, if any at all, of 'Keep' votes have showed and/or answered this so far. Davide King (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delsort notifications
    • Not for noting, but isn't the fact that the main justification of deletion was WP:TNT and the fact that the article still doesn't exist a bit of an indication that the deletion result was a bit misguided? It's not clear to me that editors seriously took up the second part of TNT, which is that a new article should be created, but this time using RS. If anything, wouldn't that indicate that the default would just be the effect of removing a bunch of material from Wikipedia without much of a plan to replace it with better material? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nug, Mikehawk10 and Volunteer Marek. This article which, as of this writing, consists of 313,629 bytes, is as strongly sourced as any English Wikipedia article can possibly be. In comparison with the much-shorter related article, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, which has 33 inline cites and a 9-entry bibliography, this article boasts 302 inline cites based on a bibliography of at least 280 individual titles, most of which are books, plus 25 additional titles under "Further reading". The amount of effort invested in producing such output was enormous and cannot be replaced with any other Wikipedia entry. It provides a treasure trove of research for those engaged in academic study of this subject and its deletion would constitute an irreplaceable loss of historical knowledge presented in one compressed outline. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you are using references to WP:V to justify NOR/NPOV violations.
    And, please, take a time and read a discussion of usage of some of those 302 sources: many key sources have been blatantly misused or directly misinterpreted in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    None of this address our arguments for why, despite this, the article is so problematic to warrant such a strong solution; WP:VERIFY is but one policy, WP:NPOV is another, and so on. It shows how problematic and grave the situation is that so many sources are misunderstood, including core sources like Valentino, who gave this article the name. The article is an example of WP:REFBOMBING, which gives a misleading picture, as if there is a whole scholarly literature about it, when situation is much different — Siebert and I have proposed time and time again a rewrite, rather than deletion, but the other side did not even attempt at coming close to us.
    "Not only does citation overkill impact the readability of an article, it can call the notability of the subject into question by editors. A well-meaning editor may attempt to make a subject which does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines appear to be notable through quantity of sources. Ironically, this serves as a red flag to experienced editors that the article needs scrutiny and that each citation needs to be verified carefully to ensure that it was really used to contribute to the article." [empashis mine]
    Davide King (talk) 02:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, we have a user making an argument that the topic itself is covered by multiple independent reliable sources. The pointing to sourcing is clearly a WP:GNG arguments made in light of WP:N, which is the relevant policy if we're discussing deletion. Deletion is not cleanup and attempts to delete the article because one views the article to be non-neutral or contain material not core to the original topic are not warranted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not necessarily disagree that it is not notable, we disagree about the topic, and if we cannot agree on the topic and article's structure, how can we improve the article, reach a consensus, and solve such NPOV and related issues? The only notable topic, which can respect NPOV, is this one and the perfectly summarized structure. Davide King (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Roman Spinner:, take a look at this. I picked one subsection, and I found that, out of 8 or 9 sources cited in that text, just one barely supports the claims. Thus, the source for Goldhagen's views is the article that was published several years before that author started to publish his works. That means the source technically incapable to support the ostensibly "well sourced" claim. Other sources (e.g. Valentino) appeared to be directly misinterpreted. Some sources do not discuss the topic at all. It seems sources were picked randomly in attempts to create an impression of a "well written" article. I realize you couldn't know that when you were !voting. However, now you have been duly informed about that problem. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is Valentino being misinterpreted? He defines a Topology of Mass Killing, listing six types: Communist, Ethnic, Territorial, Counterguerilla, Terrorist and Imperialist on page 70.
On page 71, he felt the need to explicitly note the role of Ideology in Dispossessive Mass Killings:
Several of the cases categorised in this book as dispossessive mass killings have been described as ideological mass killings/genocides by other authors. Indeed, few scholars who have studied genocide and mass killings have failed to comment on the central role that ideology has played in some of the twentieth century’s bloodiest mass killings. In particular, the ideology of the ruling elites played a central role in the mass killings of communist states such as the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia and of explicitly racist states such as Nazi Germany.
In describing Communist type mass killings, he further writes:
The most deadly mass killings in history have resulted from the effort to transform society according to communist ideology. Radical communist regimes have proven so exceptionally violent because the changes they have sought to bring about have resulted in the nearly complete material dispossession of vast numbers of people.
--Nug (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is cherry picking from a a primary source. Reviews at Benjamin Valentino and Mass killing clearly disagree, and you have failed to gain consensus for your proposed changes, therefore yours remain allegations. Even if you were right, Valentino's Communist mass killing category is applied only to three out of dozens Communist regimes, therefore the scope of this article must be significantly reduced. Davide King (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How is Valentino a primary source in that context? If that's his own analysis, then surely it would render it to be a secondary source for the topic as a whole. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valentino is a secondary source. Primary sources are things like death certificates and census data. Valentino applies it to eight Communist regimes, including Bulgaria, East Germany, Romania, North Korea and North Vietnam. --Nug (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, you did not get my point. This is yet another problem of the article, namely than rather than use secondary/tertiary sources to summarize for us what those authors think and posit, we cite it with few exceptions (e.g. Rummel), to the authors themselves ("he sad, she said"), which has caused their views to not be fairly and properly represented, e.g. Valentino does not propose MKuCR but Communist mass killing, which is not the same thing. As showed by WP:PRIMARY and WP:SECONDARY, Valentino is a secondary source about the events and a tertiary source about estimates but a primary source in regards to his own views (e.g. causes) about the events, is this more clear? Davide King (talk) 03:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." (Valentino 2013, p. 91.) The bolded parts are obviously missing and not reflected in either Nug's cherry picking and MKuCR. Davide King (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much to the contrary, it actually provides a differential analysis of Communist regimes with respect to mass killings. This seems to support that he was indeed talking about the group of mass killings performed by Communist regimes as a real phenomenon that deserved an explanation. There seems to be an underlying assumption in arguments made by several delete !voters that this should be deleted if there isn't a causal relationship between Communism and mass killings. I don't think that's in line with our practice of keeping race and intelligence or vaccines and autism as articles. If the complaint is that the information on the difference between Communist regimes that engage in mass killings and those that don't is not in the article, WP:SOFIXIT would apply. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A link is necessary because it is not sufficient that some events under Communist regimes were mass killings, there needs to be a clearer link than the regimes being nominally Communist. Are you aware that despite my 'Delete' vote, I have actually proposed a 'Keep' by rewriting MKuCR precisely on such articles, e.g. discussing the link between Communist states and mass killings, which would be the article's title? If the 'Keep' side agree with this, we may call it quits and work together. Davide King (talk) 03:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I don't quite understand what you mean by we may call it quits and work together, inasmuch as I'm not involved in the content dispute that apparently is a chief force in the AfD. I don't think that the article should be limited to an analysis on the causality—it's important, but it's not the whole thing. The whole topic, in my view, is the group of killings that has been discussed in multiple reliable sources as communist mass killings. In my view, a summary style article would include the noteworthy mass killings discussed in reliable sources, as well as academic reactions to the grouping of them as a phenomenon. The genocide-related article I'm most familiar with is Uyghur genocide; for a very long time (from its inception as a class project until a few months ago), the classification section was relatively high up in the article. Truth be told, it was because my classmates and I were struggling in Fall 2019 with figuring out whether to call it an ethnocide or cultural genocide, or plain genocide, and we decided to list all the noteworthy opinions. My understanding is that that same basic thing is what WP:NPOV calls us to do here. A summary style article that describes the various abuses noted to be in the category of communist mass killings by multiple reliable sources, complete with a section discussing the various views that academics and other RS have about the category as a whole, seems to be a perfectly reasonable topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that if we can agree for a rewrite/restructuring, deletion can be avoided. The problem of summary style is that MKuCR does not summarize the events in NPOV, e.g. not all views are provided (mainstream country experts who completely ignore genocide scholars are not used to summarize their views of the events). Siebert and I have have repeatedly proposed to keep the article, while restructuring it to add country specialists — but one user (AmateurEditor) dismissed relying on country specialists as SYNTH, and attempts at rewrite/restructing to incorporate this have been rejected by other side, even though it was a compromise on our part. Siebert can better explain you this, e.g. majority sources (country specialists) who do not describe many of those events as mass killings (again, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot fit, not all Communist regimes, so under Communist regimes is misleading, since it does not even discuss majority of them). Another issue is that most of those events are discussed individually, or separatively by majority scholarly sources, so why whould we give minority (genocide scholars) the controversial grouping WEIGHT? Keep in mind that AmateurEditor, strong 'Keep' defender acknowledged that such sources were a minority but qualified them as significant, and as long as they are attributed, they are fine. It still fails NPOV and WEIGHT for not providing majority sources (country specialists) the much greater WEIGHT they warrant. Davide King (talk) 04:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a rewrite is probably needed if we're going to make the article better along the lines that I lay out above. But, that's totally aside from the question of whether or not this is a notable topic. Per WP:N, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article. Notability is presumed when
  1. A topic passes its relevant notability guideline (WP:GNG or an WP:SNG); and
  2. A topic is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
Notability is not dependent on the current state of the article's sourcing, but instead dependent on the fact that the sources exist. And, if we're willing to entertain that the sources exist but are simply being misued in a manner that's generating issues with WP:NPOV, then that's separate; the topic of "mass killings under communist regimes" is not made non-notable owing to the present state of its article. While I'm totally on board modifying the manner in which the article describes the characterizations of the usefulness of the grouping, it would a mismatch to say that the current state of the article in some way has a bearing on whether or not this topic fails to deserve its own article or should be deleted. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As if it is not clear enough, if some quotes from Valentino may appear that he supports ideology as a link with mass killing, it is made irrelevant by the fact academic reviews of his work say ideology and regime type is not as important, and Valentino's emphasis is on the leaders and their motives, which are not necessarily ideological. Davide King (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nug, cherry-picking from a source is dangerous. You picked one quote, and DK picked another, both quotes from the same source. Do you sincerely believe we have no access to that source?
Let's rely on interpretations made by professionals.
"Disagreeing with Rummel’s finding that authoritarian and totalitarian government explains mass murder, Valentino (2004) argues that regime type does not matter; to Valentino the crucial thing is the motive for mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70). He divides motive into the two categories of dispossessive mass killing (as in ethnic cleansing, colonial enlargement, or collectivization of agriculture) and coercive mass killing (as in counter-guerrilla, terrorist, and Axis imperialist conquests). A complication in his work is that one of Valentino’s three main categories of killing is ‘communist’ mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70), so he brings in regime type, after all, and so ends up a bit closer to Rummel than one would have expected at the outset of the book." (Wayman&Tago)
"a bit closer" is not even "close". From your previous comments I conclude that you are perfectly familiar with that source. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the statement that one of Valentino’s three main categories of killing is ‘communist’ mass killing proving Nug's point? Surely this is evidence that the categorization is actually undertaken by academics, even if they don't embrace ideology as the causal factor. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But Valentino concludes that only Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes fit the Communist mass killing category, while Bulgaria and other case studies do not, yet the article's structure treats it as if the latter fit the category too. Davide King (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First, we are talking about a different point: the MKuCR article claims Valentino believes that ideology plays a significant role. In reality, he does not.
Second, with regard to a separate category ("Communist mass killings"), yes, he grouped three regimes together, and that is natural, because they all were implementing deep social transformations. If I were writing that book, I would combine them together too, because they had more in common with each other than with, e.g. Guatemala or Afghanistan. However, the main Valentino's theoretical conclusion is that leader's personality is a key factor in mass killings, and the regimes, including Communist regimes that have no such leaders do not commit mass killings. And from that, he makes " an extremely useful conclusion: The best strategy for prevention is to remove those leaders likely to commit mass murder." (Gregory H. Stanton, Source: The Wilson Quarterly (1976-), Autumn, 2004, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Autumn, 2004), pp. 116-117).
Again, the author who claims that several Communist leaders were primary culprits and cause of mass killings in some Communist states is not a good source for generalizations made in this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That is also just one review about Valentino's work, other academic reviews emphasize his lack of focus in regards to regime types, e.g. Ikenberry 2004 ("In this astute and provocative study, Valentino argues instead that leaders, not societies, are to blame. In most cases, he finds that powerful leaders use mass killing to advance their own interests or indulge their own hatreds, rather than to carry out the desires of their constituencies. This 'strategic' view emerges from a review of mass killing in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia; ethnic killing in Turkish Armenia, Nazi Germany, and Rwanda; and counter-guerrilla killing in Guatemala and Afghanistan.") Davide King (talk) 03:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, yes, that type categorisation is made in several sources, but the question is how strong it is? How frequently and how extensively "communist mass killings" (I mean not just a subset thereof, but a whole set, starting from Cuba and ending with North Korea) are being discussed as some common phenomenon, and how frequently those events are grouped in different ways? What is more frequent: discussion of Cambodia in context of Communist mass killing or in a context of Asian genocides? And how many sources emphasize country-specific aspects? That is a question we should answer to start speaking seriously. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Valentino says available evidence suggests these other communist states fit the Communist mass killing category too, but there is insufficient documentation to make a definitive judgement. Wayman&Tago states that Harff's database shows mass killings occurred in a quarter of communist regimes, while Rummel's database shows that mass killings occur in three-quarters of communist regimes. Wayman&Tago then did a comparative analysis of the two databases and concluded that Rummel's database is entirely consistent with Harff's, with Harff being essentially a subset of Rummel's. The authors find that important regime effects either appear or disappear depending on the dataset used, with regime generally having a significant effect on onset of democide, but not having a significant effect on onset of geno-politicide. --Nug (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will just say you have tried to push this at Mass killing (you were reverted and did not discuss it further) but have failed to gain consensus for this view so far. It is pointless to further discuss this, let's all leave some space for other users to express their views in regards to 'Keep', 'Delete', 'Whatever.' Davide King (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't satifiactorily explained how text properly attributed to its authors is "information presented as fact". --Nug (talk)

Mikehawk10, Nug, and Paul Siebert

Rather than engage in an endless dispute about sources, should we not perhaps take Valentino at WP:NORN/WP:RSN and ask whose 'reading' is 'correct'? I am pretty confident in Siebert to prove that we are right on this. The same can be done for other sources. If they are found not to be related to the topic or misread by MKuCR (e.g. Levivich's and others' point), they should not be used in support for 'Keep'; vice versa, I will stop using this argument for 'Deletion.' This seems to be the only solution to move forward.

Davide King (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, wouldn't that just be outsourcing this discussion to another board? I don't see how WP:RSN is going to be helpful in this case; I don't think anybody is questioning the reliability of the author or publisher. And, if the purpose of going to WP:NORN is more or less to evaluate a source with respect to its usefulness in a deletion discussion, I don't think that's really the purpose of the board. If it's the case that different editors are reading the same exact source differently as it pertains to the source's relevance to the topic's notability, then I don't see why the other boards would help in this case. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then whoever is going to close this AfD must scrutinize sources, and each argument in regards, and not take them at face value. In addition, if you think this, it is pointless to further discuss this — I agree with AndyTheGrump's comment here, which the closer should seriously consider as an argument in favour of deletion — I hope the closer will be able to analyze sources and find what rational argument is more persuasive and better reflect what sources say. Davide King (talk) 04:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR thus delete is not a very... sound way to approach deletion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: Do you realize we were in the middle of WP:DR discussion when this AfD has been opened? Among other things, we were discussing the article's topic. It could be either "summary style" article about the events, or it could be a discussion of views that links Communism with mass killings. Currently, it is a weird hybrid of both: it pretends to be a summary style article, but it is written from the perspective of predominantly those sources that link Communism and mass killings. Even worse, it used the works of some country experts, but it is doing that is such a way that a totally false impression is created that those author share the views that some generic Communism was a primary cause of each of those events. It is not a good place to reproduce the whole dispute, just go to the DR page and read it. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that. I'm not really sure what the bearing is upon the notability of this topic; that seems to be separate from how to weight the sources in making the article. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How can we discuss notability of the topic if we even don't know the notability of what we are discussing? If, e.g. The Great Purge or Cambodian genocide are notable topics, that doesn't mean the narrative linking these two is a notable topic per se. Paul Siebert (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I must say that the current version of the article appears to be in a rather sorry state Well, if it's not going to get fixed after ten years then we might as well blow it up per WP:TNT, the current topic is unworkable as WP:SYNTH, as has been demonstrated by numerous talk page discussions. It is better that the article does not exist at all than it does in this state. Deleting an article because it has unfixable issues with synth and NPOV is a valid deletion rationale, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My pointing to it being in a better state was earlier this year... — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ironically the lede mentioned by the nominator[17] was actually inserted by one of the participants !voting for delete [18]. In fact the current state of the article is largely due to his efforts since August. —Nug (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, this lead, which makes no mention of controversy, criticism, does not address which those Communist states are, etc., is much better (sarcasm). If they think I did it on purpose to make the article worse, they are nuts and I take it as a personal attack — I have simply tried to better contextualize what sources say, e.g. Valentino, and finally have a bloody topic sentence and attempting a summary of the body. Davide King (talk) 05:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Nug: The lede was quoted as I found it, because I thought it a succinct way of demonstrating inherent problems with a licensed premise, however, wehn I checked the history to find any other attempt at a more conventional introduction I overlooked the diff you quoted. I would add that comparision that to my comments above, having omitted my own thought experiments as looking pointy and sarcastic, unless there is another example that introduces the page's topic that is supported by those expressing keep sentiments. ~ cygnis insignis 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Pardon, the diff I was looking at was quoted by Davide, not Nug, but the request for any alternative to the first one or two sentences (with the title in bold?) would be welcome. ~ cygnis insignis 16:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looking at the recent history of the article - which used to be much better (if not perfect - no article ever is!) - it does seem like the process here has been “Step 1, make the article horrible by stuffing it full of bad writing and irrelevancies. Step 2, go running to AfD saying ‘look at how bad the article is!’ Yeah, like Mikehawk10 says above, just return it to its earlier state. Volunteer Marek 01:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I doubt a process like that would be possible with this page's extensive history and attention. It would not have influenced me when considering the nomination and, as it now needs to be denied amidst the noise, I haven't edited the article. I am, however, still concerned by views that the current state is not considered representative of its possibilities. Is there a version that approximates a better state? ~ cygnis insignis 13:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a notable topic with a myriad of reliable sources to show both context and notability. A previous version of the article was more refined, before large editorializations and undue weight -- mainly by the pro-deletion editors here -- imbalanced the content. Certainly some of the caveats and controversies need mention as many of them already were mentioned. One important point: The article isn't titled "Mass killings under communism". It's titled "Mass killings under communist regimes". The pro-deletion participants keep reiterating on this page that it is 'not fair to communism' to group all communist leaders together because they were not 'true communism'. Whether this the case, that is the function of the key word 'regimes', all of them are grouped by their official, formal and historically attested declaration of themselves as communist, they are referred to by their regimes specifically, and many of these regimes historically known to have performed mass acts of state violence, as recognized by historians on all sides of the political spectrum, as cited in this article and others. Rauisuchian (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly a strawman — none of us is resorting to such 'no true communism' nonsense. Check The Black Book of Communism for scholarly criticism of such "generic Communism" grouping (Mecklenburg & Wolfgang Wippermann 1998, Dallin 2000, David-Fox 2004), which has been acknowledged as controversial, and certainly not as straightforward as the 'Keep' side may claim, by DRN moderator Robert McClenon here. Davide King (talk) 05:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am seeing some book reviews that criticize The Black Book of Communism for overly focusing on the death count, but even this review would indicate that The Black Book of Communism does indeed talk about mass killings under Communist regimes as its main lens. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is the death count really relevant beyond a section discussing estimates? Whether it is 100 million, 10 million or even 1 million, it's still a mass killing by Valentino's accepted criteria of 50,000 over 5 years. --Nug (talk) 06:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when thet body count is used to push the view that communism killed 100 million people, which lacks context and nuance. Apart from Courtois and Rummel, genocide scholars and many other (if not majority) historians do not agree with this simplicitic view, and those like Valentino focus on leaders, not ideologies or regime type. Davide King (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This review is also saying that The Black Book of Communism revealed the unprecedented cruelty and scale of communist genocide and that, according to Aron, communism was responsible for numerous cases of mass genocide. Seems pretty clear to me that this book is actually talking about mass killings under Communist regimes as a group. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, this review states that regardless of their noble claims and pretenses, communist regimes in Soviet Russia, Maoist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia, North Korea, postwar Eastern Europe, Afghanistan, Africa, and Latin America engaged in systematic mass murder. The authors of this book argue that murder was inherent in communist attempts to mold society, as was their dehumanization of enemies and their refusal to accept the legitimacy of civil society-especially in war-torn nations bereft of democratic traditions and institutions. Once again, it seems awfully like The Black Book of Communism is indeed talking about mass killings under Communist regimes as if it were a group. I don't really see where the arguments are that this book would not contribute towards the notability of this topic. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot access to the first one but one of them is a conservative magazine (The National Interest), and that does not change the fact majority of academic reviews I have read say it is more about Communism and criminality than Mass killing or MKuCR as put in this article, or even more about a Communist death toll, which includes many events that are not proper mass killings and famines, than anything. The Black Book of Communism is clearly valuable as is controversial (unlike notability,1 NPOV is not negotiable), and one of my arguments for deletion is that all NPOV, OR/SYNTH, and related issues, after well over a decade by now, simply cannot be solved, keeping the article as it is may act as citogenesis, and be more harmful than helpful (Conservapedia and Metapedia are appears to be the two other 'encyclopedias' to discuss MKuCR as we do2 — so citing a controversial work, including its controversial grouping, when scholars disagree, to imply it is a scholarly consensus (scholars disagree) is not helpful, is misleading (e.g. many of those sources used do not write within the context of Communist grouping but within that of individual states, and Jones 2011 separates Stalin and Mao from Pol Pot; have you checked Siebert about type sources (1)?
Notes
1. "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." — WP:N
Hence, Levivich's and other users' argument is still valid and sound, otherwise it would have been a snowclose; Siebert and I agree it is a notable topic but exactly what topic? Not MkCUR and its NPOV, OR/SYNTH issues, among others, but the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer of the 20th century.

"In my opinion, the really notable topic is the discussion of the view that Communism was the greatest mass murderer in XX century. Who said that? Why? What was the main purpose for putting forward this idea? How this idea was accepted? Who supports that? Who criticise it and what the criticism consists in? How this idea is linked to recent trends in Holocaust obfuscation? And so on, and so forth. This would be a really notable topic, and that can save the article from deletion. However, that will require almost complete rewrite of the article." — Paul Siebert

2. I am not opposed to an article that focuses mainly on theory rather than discussing the events, which can simply be linked either when mentioned or through See also. Changing MKuCR to Communist state(s) and mass killing(s) would be a better way to put it. Davide King (talk) 10:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King Not intended to be a strawman. The "not true communism" argument has also been made by, for example, historians criticizing historical communist regimes as part of a thesis of totalitarianism. Separately, even if the argument of "incomparable communisms" is made, which is one view and not common, the grouping of regime is still valid, in terms of a categorizational role. The point is if the historical regime called itself communist, had a Communist Party, and historians generally refer to it as that then it is of relevance. I would echo Cloud200's point here in the same thread. The extensive excerpts and notes section has been criticized as part of this discussion (the quotes are probably too long), but plainly illustrates the variety, notability, and non-dogmatic nature of grouping this topic given the diversity of the scholars cited. Yes, the caveats and controversies need mention, however that is not a full deletion reason, that is a revise parts of the article reason. Rauisuchian (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See above comment. You say "however that is not a full deletion reason, that is a revise parts of the article reason", yet all attempts at compromise by us at such revision have been ignored — NPOV is not negotiable, and if we cannot have a NPOV article (it has been well over a decade, that is more than enough time), it should be deleted and we may start over. Siebert and I have identified a notable topic that, if properly written and structured, can be in full respect of NPOV and NO OR. Davide King (talk) 10:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV is not negotiable, but your perception of NPOV certainly is up for discussion, or are you infallible like the Pope?. I've not yet seen you conceed one single point during the course of the discussions, so you claim "yet all attempts at compromise by us" is not really true. --Nug (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may be fair but I never claimed to be the Pope, and I admit the possibility of being wrong (can you say the same about yourself?); it goes both ways, and it equally applies to you, who is ignoring that moderator ruled there is a negative consensus that there are issues (I do not deny that you think there are issues, e.g. current lead), so I kindly ask you to not deny us. The article fails NPOV precisely because it presents only one perspective, that of authors who have discussed some mass killings under Communist regimes, which is different from MKuCR. Karlsson, a cource that you appear to support only when it suits you, says Courtois and Rummel are controversial, therefore MKuCR fails NPOV not because of some 'no true communism' nonsense but because that is the only perspective, that of a minority of genocide scholars and one-sided historical/historians views. Davide King (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is really splitting hairs to the point that the argument uses utility if we're saying that authors that discuss mass killings under communist regimes is somehow different from MKuCR. Using an abbreviation as a pointer to some topic that is apparently different than the topic referred to by the descriptive title of this piece doesn't help to clarify things at all. — Mhawk10 (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then can you please simply answer this — what is the main topic and its scope? (1) List of Communist mass killings (e.g. events — summary style), (2) Link between communism and mass killing (e.g. theory — events should simply be linked rather than use summary style), and/or (3) both? My understanding is that this article has attempted to do 3 for its whole life — the NPOV issue is that those disagreeing with such links, many of which are scholars who holds much more WEIGHT than popular press authors and/or not specialist, are basically not discussed at all, and is SYNTH because it provides only the perspective of such link being true and/or those who propose a Communist grouping for mass killings. Davide King (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Excellent points by Levivich and AndyTheGrump. Better to cover individual events in appropriate context. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article is certainly not a POV-fork, because it discusses an unique topic of the link between communist ideology and mass-scale extermination of people in order to achieve the objectives of the ideology with examples and comprehensive academic and political discussion. Arguments that "other syrestems also killed people" are non sequitur and whataboutism for the purpose of this discussion. The link between Marxism-Leninism and violence is WP:NOTABLE and well documented in the article using numerous W:RS, beginning from the concepts of dictatorship of the proletariat, class war and "violent revolution". The rest of the article describes cases when the theory has been applied in practice, leading to extremination of thousands of people in the name of collectivization, "eradication of bourgeoisie as a class", central planning or simply suppressing resistance against communism. Some authors disagree with that link, and these views are also prominently displayed in the article, using other WP:RS, preserving WP:NPOV. Also, as explained in the DRN discussion, there is no single "majority" view on these topics as view from US or Western Europe are very different from views in Eastern Europe or Asia, even though they are all based on pretty the same sources and facts, but interepret them differently - but once again, this diversity of views is well represented in the article. Ultimately, if there's someone out there wondering if an ideology that obsessively pivots around "violent revolution" could possibly have any impact on human lives or not, this article provides a pretty objective, well-documented and quantified answer. Cloud200 (talk) 10:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    While comparisons with other systems may have been an argument on the talk page, it has not been cited here as the reason for 'Delete.' It would be helpful if the 'Keep' side at least understood our arguments and reasoning, as I do understand and can respect theirs, even if I disagree and feel that is not sufficient for writing a NPOV article, which is not negotiable. Davide King (talk) 10:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You are countering every single Keep vote here with lengthy tirades, countering any arguments provided by the people voting to keep the article, and simply flooding the discussion in a Gish gallop style, which you have also done with Siebert for years in the article's talk page, in the DRN and in individual editors' talk page. Your name in this discussion already appears 33 times, but regardless on how much text you write, this won't make the victims of Marxism-Leninism mass killings magically go away, disappear or get forgotten. Cloud200 (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not my fault you do not understand our reasoning. Your emotional appeals will not make NPOV, OR/SYNTH issues, recognized by the moderator at DRN, magically go away, either. As you can see here, Siebert and I have actually identified and proposed a clearly notable topic that may fix such issues and that the 'Keep' side has completely ignored, and clearly shows we are no hardliners. Davide King (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would note that Mikehawk10 told me the article is not about any link (in contrast to what Cloud200 cited above as reasons for 'Keep'), so how can the 'Keep' side be taken seriously when even they disagree about the main topic and its structure? That is not counting also our own disagreement. When it has been over a decade we disagree on what exactly the main topic is (mass killings vs. mass mortality), whether it is about a link or the events themselves, and/or both, can the 'Keep' side explains this? That would require a RfC about it, and if we cannot reach a consensus there, we are back to this here.
    P.S. I am not asking a RfC now, it is just an example, but may be necessary even if the article is kept. Davide King (talk) 11:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personalising discussion is unhelpful at best, but suggesting that others are attempting to "… make the victims of Marxism-Leninism mass killings magically go away, disappear or get forgotten" is getting beyond silly. ~ cygnis insignis 11:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You might have a different view on this if you spent two months responding to five page tirades in response to every single comment on improving the article, written by just two users, who continuously switch between "we're just proposing a neutral academic approach" and "Stalinism wasn't intrisically genocidal" hats[19], and rewrote ~10% of the article in that spirit. In any case, I have cast my vote and explained my reasoning. Cloud200 (talk) 12:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps, in fact I can think of when I have been both positions, but my approach here strongly implies a view that investing in the article was not a good use of editor's time and I recognise that will be offensive to those who acted differently. ~ cygnis insignis 15:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - covers WP:GNG. Plenty of third party sources as well. I see also that the article has been through three AfDs before with a Keep result. BabbaQ (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please excuse the blunt questions: What is meant by "covers GNG"? What third party sources are there and how do they have a bearing on this discussion? There are more than three AfDs noted in my proposal, if that is not a rationale in itself then what part is persuading a quite cursory vote of keep? ~ cygnis insignis 15:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the !voter is saying that there are multiple independent reliable sources that significantly cover the topic of mass killings under communist regimes. That seems to be the plain reading. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. The plain reading is that there are multiple sources that cover each subtopic separately from each other, and there are just few sources that cover this topic as whole. These sources are written from different perspective, and the whole article conveys this minor POV. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Crimes against humanity under communist regimes – Research review (Karlsson 2008) is the only tertiary source and general source that I can concede it covers WP:GNG — however, it prefers crimes against humanity over mass killings, genocides, or other terms (meaning MKuCR and Crimes against humanity under communist regimes should be merged), is mainly a comparative analysis of Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes (three very specific periods in three different regimes out of dozens and dozens of Communist regimes, which can be discussed individually elsewhere), says that killings were the result not of communism per se but were carried out as part of a policy of an unbalanced modernization process of rapid industrialization (Karlsson 2008, p. 8), and more importantly describes as controversial Courtois and Rummel, whom MKuCR heavily relies on. Davide King (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Crimes against humanity" is a superset of mass killings, in involves crimes like deportation and enslavement in addition to mass killings. The controversie around Courtois is related to his estimate, that isn't really relevant since whether it is 100 million, 10 million or even 1 million, it's still a mass killing by Valentino's accepted criteria of 50,000 over 5 years. --Nug (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong. The controversy of Courtois is not only his numbers, but his concept as whole. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See here, and you are completely wrong if you think the only issue with Courtois is estimates, just like with Rummel that is not the sole issue.
    At p. 54, Karlsson 2008 says:
    Bearing in mind the charged nature of the subject, it is polemically effective to make such comparisons, but it does not seem particularly fruitful, neither morally nor scientifically, to judge the regimes on the basis of their 'dangerousness' or to assess the relationship between communism and Nazism on the basis of what the international academic community calls their 'atrocities toll' or 'body count'. In that case, should the crimes of all communist regimes, in the Soviet Union, China, Cambodia and other countries where communism is or has been the dominant party, be compared to the Nazi regime's massacre of six million Jews? Should the Nazi death toll also include the tens of millions of people who the German Nazi armies and their supporting troops killed during the Second World War? Not even Courtois' analytical qualification, that ranking the two regimes the same is based on the idea that the 'weapon of hunger' was used systematically by both the Nazi regime and a number of communist regimes, makes this more reasonable, since this 'weapon' on the whole played a very limited role in the Nazi genocide in relation to other types of methods of mass destruction, and in relation to how it was used by communist regimes.
    Davide King (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, isn't the fact that the article has survived so many attempts to delete it actually evidence that it is notable? I am a bit confused as to the implication that treated lay surviving deletion attempts is evidence against notability, Cygnis insignis. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first three AfDs were all ruled as No consensus, and the last one acknowledged that issues remained and to work together to find a solution. Over ten years later and such a solution to fix issues has not been found. Davide King (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Making the proposal to delete does strongly imply that I took the view that previous AfDs were not evidence of notability. What is confusing about that? ~ cygnis insignis 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We cannot seriously discuss notability, because there is even no agreement on what is the article's topic: is it a story of mass killings, or a discussion of their connection to Communism?
    Depending on concrete topic's definition, the topic may be quite notable, so if your AfD is based primarily on notability, it is a weak AfD. There are other reasons for deletion, and these reasons are quite serious. Notability is not the most serious reason. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - while it is important to talk about mass killings and atrocities commited by people like Stalin or Pol Pot, we already have Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, and both seem to be attempting to create a synthesised correlation between socialist states and mass killings. A lot of these states had very different, even conflicting policies and ideologies, and even were in conflict with eachother. We could easily talk about mass killings in general in the 19th and 20th century that were happening at the same time and end up including several different countries (capitalist Indonesia, Bengal famine of 1943, Greek genocide, Armenian genocide, the Holocaust, the Jeju massacre, the Wola massacre etc. etc.) BeŻet (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Karlsson, Courtois, Valentino and Rummel all make that correlation, so WP:SYNTH is no longer an argument. Nug (talk)
Crimes against humanity under communist regimes covers a microscopic fraction of what Mass killings under communist regimes is covering and is generally much more poorly sourced. If anything, the former should be integrated with the latter, not the latter deleted. Also, the correlation is not synthesised - Marxism-Leninism contains numerous calls for "revolutionary violence" in order to physically get rid of "bourgeois class" which has been happily picked up by people like Lenin and Stalin (whose writings are thus WP:SECONDARY on Marx and Engles), and of course also later authors referenced in the article. Lenin and Stalin did not diverge from the course set by Marx, they directly followed it. Cloud200 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Karlsson has showed that Courtois and Rummel are controversial, and Karlsson himself treats the topic as a single one, so it is OR/SYNTH to imply they are two separate topics. Again, that "Lenin and Stalin did not diverge from the course set by Marx, they directly followed it" is one of many interpretations of Communism — MKuCR provides only this, which is why it fails NPOV, not because of some 'no true communism' nonsense but because it fails this: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." — WP:NPOV Davide King (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC) [Edited to add] As all attempts to fix such NPOV issues have failed, and we have had over a decade to do it, deletion (with most of the content already covered in other articles, so nothing would actually be lost) seems to be one clear solution, unless the 'Keep' side either agree on a clear main topic (list of Communist mass killings, link of communism and mass killing, etc.) or is willing to support a rewrite or restructuring to address the issues. Davide King (talk) 19:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: First, if some authors make a statement, and other sources are added to create an impression that they support that statement, it is still SYNTH. Second, Valentino sees no strong connections, and that was explained to you several times.
Cloud200, your interpretation is deeply ahistorical. The XIX century, when Marx and his supporters were calling for revolutionary violence, was a century of national revolutions, so that was a normal rhetoric. Many, if not majority of modern European nation-states (France, Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Netherlands etc) formed as a result of revolutionary violence, and Marxists had no relation to that. Importantly, a significant part of Marx&Engels writings was devoted to national revolutionary violence, which, according to them, was pawing a way for proletarian revolution. Currently, those bourgeois revolutions (a.k.a. independence movements) are seek quite positively by most authors, so your attempts to present those writings as a theoretical foundation for mass killings look totally artificial. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"modern European nation-states ... formed as a result of revolutionary violence, and Marxists had no relation to that" - that's classic non sequitur. It's one thing to have short-term violence in order to remove occupational forces, which then quickly settles down, but completely different to have an ideology that postulates continued state-level violence (dictatorship of the proletariat, class war) in order to achieve an utopian goal of "eradication of bourgeoisie as a class", which due to its vague character can be dialectically continued forever, which is precisely what was happening in communist states. But you know that, we had this discussions for a month in the article's talk page, you just chose to ignore that. Cloud200 (talk) 09:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]
  • Neutral From a policy and guideline standpoint this should be a "keep". But the compound criteria title has made and will make this article a hopeless and eternal mess. And what it is about? Allegations and studies of whther or not a country being under a communist regime tends to cause or enable mass killngs? I made this suggestion under which the article has hope, and that is my suggestion. . Or is it also coverage of mass killings that have occurred under communist regimes? In this case the scope is gigantic and a duplicaiton of other articles. Without the suggested focus being accomplished, a "delete" would relieve the editors here of their past and future misery. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good comment because it concisely explains what we have been arguing this whole time about the topic, where notability is useless without respecting NPOV. The biggest problem and why I am arguing for such a drastic solution (deletion, even though most content is not going to be lost, due to being covered elsewhere) is that the article attempts to do both things (hence violates NPOV), which makes the "gigantic and a duplicaiton of other articles" (COAT/POV FORK/OR/SYNTH) from the second topic even worse. Davide King (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is an extremely notable topic that has been covered by countless historians and sources. I am honestly baffled by the large amount of people advocating in favour of deletion. If we're going to delete this article, then we might as well do the same for this article too. X-Editor (talk) 19:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, that article should be deleted on the same OR/SYNTH grounds, which is something you completely ignored — notability is useless when there are serious issues of NPOV and OR/SYNTH. Anti-communist mass killing(s) is used to describe the Indonesian genocide, so it should simply redirect there. I would delete both on the same grounds, and support a rewrite of this article if we can actually agree on the topic's scope (per North8000). Davide King (talk) 19:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and that is not my intention, but it would be good to provide core sources for the topic and sources in support of the argument, as has been done by other users (indeed, you did that and I thank you for it, why should not others do the same?), e.g. I cited sources criticizing the Communist grouping, which shows is controversial and not agreed among scholars — it is also equally true that countless of historians completely ignore the topic, e.g. Michael Ellman and Stephen G. Wheatcroft wrote about excess mortality in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, not MKuCR, and did not write about Communism in general; this is one issue of SYNTH because both of those two scholars, among others, are actually discussed but it gives the misleading impression they support the Communist grouping or that they are writing within the context of Communist mass killings in broad terms and grouping. Davide King (talk) 20:10, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-communist mass killings are repressions against communists or leftists. The underlying intentions behind the killings are clear. On the other hand, mass killings under communist regimes talks about different situations that are not, despite some people's opinions, simply "in the name of communism". Some of them were class based, some on racial grounds, some on political grounds etc..BeŻet (talk) 21:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After reading through all of the discussion that has sprung up on this page and reading some of the past AfDs, it seems to me that this topic could be notable. Unfortunately, the issues raised in previous AfDs (which were explicitly pointed to as needing to be addressed) are the same issues raised now, and it's not as if no attempt has been made to fix them in the intervening decade. This article is forever doomed to be a mess, and only serves as a synthetic coatrack duplicating content from elsewhere to create a maybe notable grouping, one that is very fraught as discussed ad nauseam above and in discussion previously. It either needs a complete rewrite, or to be permanently deleted with what little orginal content it has dispersed to the relevant pages. Either way, time to WP:BLOWITUP. BSMRD (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLOWITUP is just an essay, valid policy reasons for deletion are found in WP:DEL-REASON. --Nug (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely a valid reason to delete an article, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ashkenazi_Jewish_intelligence_(2nd_nomination). Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, this AfD had interupted an ongoing DR dicussion (see the collapsed discussion about suspending AfD above). It kind of seems disrespectful to those editors who are prepared to put in the effort. --Nug (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are going to cite WP:DEL-REASON, please take note of what it actually says: "Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following..." As for 'respecting' people participating in the endless debates over this article, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of respect for the broader community involved in what appears to be attempts from several of them to claim some sort of authority over how this AfD should be run. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple editors involved in (and the moderator of) the DR have agreed to let the AfD take precedence, which could very well result in the whole article going up rendering the DR moot. To appeal to the DR is effectively WP:MERCY. BSMRD (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I probably will not !vote on whether to delete, in order to remain as nearly neutral as I can in order to resume the DRN if the article is kept. I have some comments and will try to make each of them concise:
      • Be concise. The back-and-forth discussion has become too long, difficult to read. Before posting a really long comment, please ask who is the intended audience, the other editor, the closer, the community, yourself?
          • The other editor? How likely is that an overly long post will change the mind of another editor?
          • The closer? The closer will be assessing strength of arguments. Do you really think that an overly long argument is more persuasive than a short one?
          • The community? Do you really think that third-party and fourth-party editors are going to read lengthy posts? If they do, do you think that they will be persuaded rather than annoyed? If you have a lengthy, well-organized post that is relevant, write an essay and link to it.
          • Yourself?
      • There is a "negative consensus" that the article currently has major neutral point of view issues, and possibly verifiability and original research issues. Something needs to be done. I would suggest that each participant should ask whether they think that a consensus can be reached as to how to correct the article. If it is unlikely that the article can be made compliant with the second pillar of Wikipedia, then it should be deleted. If it can be improved, then it should be improved.
      • There are major inconsistencies between this article and other articles. As a result, this article isappears to be a content fork and a POV fork. Inconsistencies between articles are not allowed.
      • There have been at least three ideas for how to restructure the article:
          • Cut it down to a disambiguation article.
          • Rework it into a summary style, breaking the listing of mass killings down by events, corresponding to the existing articles on each event.
          • Rework it into a discussion of what scholars and authors say about mass communist killings overall.
      • Be concise. It needs restating.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert for your input and I hope we can resume the interrupted DR process. An !vote by you would compromise your position as moderator.
  • The negative consensus is in regard to the current version, one half of the participants believed a previous version had no major NPOV issues.
  • There there may well be some issues of consistency between MKuCR and some sub-articles. I noticed there was an issue with Mass killing, the inconsistency appears to be due to neutral point of view issues in Mass killing, however the DR process was interrupted before that could be explored further.
  • I don’t think we have explored all the possible solutions. For example, a combination of fixing some of the sub-articles and reworking the article to be both summary style and a discussion of what scholars and authors say about mass communist killings overall. I don’t see it as needing to be a binary choice between summary style versus discussion of scholars.
  • I totally agree that concise discussion of one issue at a time is the key to resolving this, overly long replies that continually bring up mulitple issues only derail any progress.
Thanks again Robert. —Nug (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Cool. (I'm asking you this because you are the main hope regarding this:) But could you clarify with "what scholars and authors say about mass communist killings overall"..did you mean 1. A possible relationship between the two. i.e. communist regimes (or something that goes along with them) might cause more prevalence of mass killings? or 2. That plus coverage of such killings themselves, not necessarily related to examining that possible correlation. (I presumend that #1 is inevitable with the title/topic) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:North8000 - The proposal was to discuss in particular a relatively small group of sources that discuss "Communist mass killing" as a single concept. These are being referred to as Type 3 sources. The proposal was to discuss only these sources, and not those who discuss specific events, or genocide scholars who discuss and compare events in countries. Since this information is not in other articles, it does not need to duplicate other Wikipedia articles. (talk) 14:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: If this is kept, I think that would be a good plan. Including saving the editors here from eternal misery. North8000 (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not only if some scholars say that, but if those views are generally accepted. Currently, the article creates an impression those views are mainstream. However, even a brief search demonstrates that that is not the case. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: I think that you misunderstand the point of my post, which is easy to do because it is rather structural / abstract. In essence I was saying that an article with its current title will inevitably be covering that question, and that, if an article suvives under the current title, that the actual open question is whether or not it should expand beyond that. North8000 (talk) 02:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account that this article is under 1RR, and any attempts to fix its problems face severe opposition, your abstract questions seem too abstract. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, according to WP:DEL-REASON, if an article is a POV-fork, that is a reason for its deletion. That means, by saying "This article is a POV-fork" you de facto voted for its deletion. Are you sure your intention was not to vote? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
User:Paul Siebert - I am not de facto voting for deletion. I agree that a POV fork is a reason to delete, if it cannot be resolved. I also said that the article should either be deleted or improved, and that the decision on whether to delete should be based on whether the NPOV issues and other issues can be resolved. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: To be fair, your assertion that "As a result, this article is a content fork and a POV fork." does comes across rather strongly, and I had the same impression as Paul of an implicit !vote. Given that the DR process could well resume, do you want to moderate that statement with a "may be a" rather than an "is"? --Nug (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, yes, usually the statement "the article is a POV-fork" is more an indication of a problem. However, there is a big differences between "Hey, I've just noticed that this article appears to be a POV-fork. Let's fix it!" and "This article is a POV-fork during last 11 years, and all attempts to fix that problem meet a serious opposition". In the first case, it is premature to speak about deletion, but in the second case it seems to be the only option. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Robert McClenon:, I am seriously thinkig about restarting this RfC. The main reason is as follows. An owerwhelming majority of Keep posts cite just one criterion listed in WP:DEL-REASON. That is not a convinsing argument, and those votes may be easily rejected if the AfD results will be appealed. This, a user who voted "Keep", because the topic is notable totally overlooks other reasons for deletion. I see at least three reasons that are applicable to this case.

  • A reason #5 (Content forks)
  • A reason #8 (Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline)
  • A reason explained in WP:ATD-E (If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted).

Each of those three reasons may be a sufficient reason for deletion, but the AfD request does not articulate them clearly. Therefore, only those "Keep" votes should be taken into account that address all three reasons. So far, almost none of participants have done that, which means their arguments can hardly have serious weight. In connection to that, I support Robert's proposal, and I can propose a draft of a new AfD.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Paul Siebert - I have not heard of an AFD being restarted while it is running. If you present arguments for deletion that you think were not properly presented when the AFD was written, you can present them, which is what you are doing. If you think that your arguments have not been addressed by the Keep proponents, you can ask the closer to Relist, which does not mean that the closer will Relist it. I don't think that presenting more arguments is likely to change any Keeps to Deletes. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order:
    1. Per WP:POVFORK, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. Simply put, I don't see that in the current article; I could not possibly see an argument that a summary style article that serves as a nexus for a group of mass killings itself constitutes a point of view. If the argument is that the grouping does not make sense or is not notable, we can see that there is plenty of academic literature among social scientists in the relevant fields that would push back on such a claim. And, if this were an inappropriate content fork, then the appropriate response would be to upmerge the contents, not to delete the article.
    2. I think the WP:GNG arguments have been discussed to death already and the arguments show that they are sound. I see no reason to repeat these points here.
    3. Regarding WP:ATD-E, the article simply does not severely fail verifiability or NPOV to such an extent that it needs to be stubified or completely deleted. As I laid out above, a summary style article that:
      1. begins discussing the classifications of mass killings and the various academic takes on whether this is a useful grouping;
      2. contains jumping off points to those mass killings committed by communist regimes that are characterized in reliable secondary sources as mass killings (or some sub-group thereof like "genocide" or "democide"); and
      3. within each section provides due weight to the various ways that reliable sources describe the scope, intentionality, and cause of particular events labeled as mass killings.
    I don't think we're actualy that far from this; the biggest problem in terms of getting this resolved appears to have a now-revoked ArbCom editing restriction that more or less made it literally impossible to edit the page for about eight years as well as particular editors disagreeing over how to interpret particular sources. The now-revoked sanction is moot, while the lattermost thing is something that can simply be resolved by issuing a series of requests for comment should informal disussions and directed mediation fail to attain a clear consensus.
— Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re 1. Please, provide an example of sources that consider Communism as a primary cause of all of those 85 million deaths. The sources I am aware of are limited with Courtois (Werth, a main contributor to the BB, publicly disagreed), Rummel (conditionally), and few others. I don't think that is "plenty". Please, provide a proof that those sources represent majority views.
Re 2. We need to discriminate notability of the events and notability of the narrative that links those events together. There is a couple of sources that make that connection, and each of them have their own article. That is not a reason for having one more article.
Re 3.1. various academics use different grouping, and this article cherry-picks just one grouping to support one POV.
3.2. ... and ignores the sources that do not describe them as such
3.3. "providing a due weight" would mean all those theorisings are moved to the bottom to the "attempted generalizations" section.
And, yes, we are very far from this, because during last 11 years the article became worse. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's a straw man argument, in my opinion, to say that only sources that assign communism primary blame for X number of deaths are acceptable. All that are required for this to be a unique topic are for there to be multiple reliable sources that cover the topic in-depth and draw some distinction between communist mass killings and other sorts of mass killings. A brief list, taken from the prior deletion discussion this diff, is below:
  1. "Communist regimes have been responsible for this century's most deadly episodes of mass killing. Estimates of the total number of people killed by communist regimes range as high as 110 million. In this chapter I focus primarily on mass killings in the Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia - history's most murderous communist states. Communist violence in these three states alone may account for between 21 million and 70 million deaths. Mass killings on a smaller scale also appear to have been carried out by communist regimes in North Korea, Vietnam, Eastern Europe, and Africa." ..."Communism has a bloody record, but most regimes that have described themselves as communist or have been described as such by others have not engaged in mass killing. In addition to shedding light on why some communist states have been among the most violent regimes in history, therefore, I also seek to explain why other communist countries have avoided this level of violence." ..."I argue that radical communist regimes have proven such prodigious killers primarily because the social change they sought to bring about have resulted in the sudden and nearly complete material and political dispossession of millions of people. These regimes practiced social engineering of the highest order. It is the revolutionary desire to bring about the rapid and radical transformation of society that distinguishes radical communist regimes from all other forms of government, including less violent communist regimes and noncommunist, authoritarian governments."
    - Benjamin Valentino, Assistant Professor of Government at Dartmouth College, in a chapter called "Communist Mass Killings: The Soviet Union, China, and Cambodia" in his book "Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", published by Cornell University Press.
  2. "All accounts of 20th-century mass murder include the Communist regimes. Some call their deeds genocide, though I shall not. I discuss the three that caused the most terrible human losses: Stalin's USSR, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. These saw themselves as belonging to a single socialist family, and all referred to a Marxist tradition of development theory. They murderously cleansed in similar ways, though to different degrees. Later regimes consciously adapted their practices to the perceived successes and failures of earlier ones. The Khmer Rouge used China and the Soviet Union (and Vietnam and North Korea) as reference societies, while China used the Soviet Union. All addressed the same basic problem - how to apply a revolutionary vision of a future industrial society to a present agrarian one. These two dimensions, of time and agrarian backwardness, help account for many of the differences." ..."Ordinary party members were also ideologically driven, believing that in order to create a new socialist society, they must lead in socialist zeal. Killings were often popular, tha rank-and-file as keen to exceed killing quotas as production quotas. The pervasive role of the party inside the state also meant that authority structures were not fully institutionalized but factionalized, even chaotic, as revisionists studying the Soviet Union have argued. Both centralized control and mass party factionalism were involved in the killings." ..."This also made for Plans nurtured by these regimes that differed from those envisioned in my sixth thesis. Much of the Communist organization of killing was more orderly than that of the ethnonationalists. Communists were more statist. But only the Plans that killed the fewest people were fully intended and occurred at early stages of the process. There is no equivalent of the final solution, and the last desperate attempt to achieve goals by mass murder after all other Plans have failed. The greatest Communist death rates were not intended but resulted from gigantic policy mistakes worsened by factionalism, and also somewhat by callous or revengeful views of the victims. But - with the Khmer Rouge as a borderline case - no Communist regime contemplated genocide. This is the biggest difference between Communist and ethnic killers: Communists caused mass deaths mainly through disastrous policy mistakes; ethnonationalists killed more deliberately."
    - Michael Mann, UCLA sociologist, in a chapter called "Communist Cleansing: Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot" from his book "The Dark Side of Democracy: Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" published by Cambridge University Press.
  3. "Dynamics of destruction/subjugation were also developed systematically by twentieth-century communist regimes, but against a very different domestic political background. The destruction of the very foundations of the former society (and consequently the men and women who embodied it) reveals the determination of the ruling elites to build a new one at all costs. The ideological conviction of leaders promoting such a political scheme is thus decisive. Nevertheless, it would be far too simplistic an interpretation to assume that the sole purpose of inflicting these various forms of violence on civilians could only aim at instilling a climate of terror in this 'new society'. In fact, they are part of a broader whole, i.e. the spectrum of social engineering techniques implememted in order to transform a society completely. There can be no doubt that it is this utopia of a classless society which drives that kind of revolutionary project. The plan for political and social reshaping will thus logically claim victims in all strata of society. And through this process, communist systems emerging in the twentieth century ended up destroying their own populations, not because they planned to annihilate them as such, but because they aimed to restructure the 'social body' from top to bottom, even if that meant purging it and recarving it to suit their new Promethean political imaginaire." ..."'Classicide', in counterpoint to genocide, has a certain appeal, but it doesn't convey the fact that communist regimes, beyond their intention of destroying 'classes' - a difficult notion to grasp in itself (what exactly is a 'kulak'?) - end up making political suspicion a rule of government: even within the Party (and perhaps even mainly within the Party). The notion of 'fratricide' is probably more appropriate in this regard. That of 'politicide', which Ted Gurr and Barbara Harff suggest, remains the most intelligent, although it implies by contrast that 'genocide' is not 'political', which is debatable. These authors in effect explain that the aim of politicide is to impose total political domination over a group or a government. Its victims are defined by their position in the social hierarchy or their political opposition to the regime or this dominant group. Such an approach applies well to the political violence of communist powers and more particularly to Pol Pot's Democratic Kampuchea. The French historian Henri Locard in fact emphasises this, identifying with Gurr and Harff's approach in his work on Cambodia. However, the term 'politicide' has little currency among some researchers because it has no legal validity in international law. That is one reason why Jean-Louis Margolin tends to recognise what happened in Cambodia as 'genocide' because, as he points out, to speak of 'politicide' amounts to considering Pol Pot's crimes as less grave than those of Hitler. Again, the weight of justice interferes in the debate about concepts that, once again, argue strongly in favour of using the word genocide. But those so concerned about the issue of legal sanctions should also take into account another legal concept that is just as powerful, and better established: that of crime against humanity. In fact, legal scholars such as Antoine Garapon and David Boyle believe that the violence perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge is much more appropriately categorised under the heading of crime against humanity, even if genocidal tendencies can be identified, particularly against the Muslim minority. This accusation is just as serious as that of genocide (the latter moreover being sometimes considered as a subcategory of the former) and should thus be subject to equally severe sentences. I quite agree with these legal scholars, believing that the notion of 'crime against humanity' is generally better suited to the violence perpetrated by communist regimes, a viewpoint shared by Michael Mann."
    - Jacques Semelin, professor of political science and research director at CERI-CNRS in Paris and founder of the Online Encyclopedia of Mass Violence, in his chapters "Destroying to Subjugate: Communist regimes: Reshaping the social body" and "Destroying to eradicate: Politicidal regimes?" in his translated book "Purify and Destroy: The Political Uses of Massacre and Genocide" published in english by Columbia University Press.
  4. "The modern search for a perfect, utopian society, whether racially or ideologically pure is very similar to the much older striving for a religiously pure society free of all polluting elements, and these are, in turn, similar to that other modern utopian notion - class purity. Dread of political and economic pollution by the survival of antagonistic classes has been for the most extreme communist leaders what fear of racial pollution was for Hitler. There, also, material explanations fail to address the extent of the killings, gruesome tortures, fantastic trails, and attempts to wipe out whole categories of people that occurred in Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China, and Pol Pot's Cambodia. The revolutionary thinkers who formed and led communist regimes were not just ordinary intellectuals. They had to be fanatics in the true sense of that word. They were so certain of their ideas that no evidence to the contrary could change their minds. Those who came to doubt the rightness of their ways were eliminated, or never achieved power. The element of religious certitude found in prophetic movements was as important as their Marxist science in sustaining the notion that their vision of socialism could be made to work. This justified the ruthless dehumanization of their enemies, who could be suppressed because they were 'objectively' and 'historically' wrong. Furthermore, if events did not work out as they were supposed to, then that was because class enemies, foreign spies and saboteurs, or worst of all, internal traitors were wrecking the plan. Under no circumstances could it be admitted that the vision itself might be unworkable, because that meant capitulation to the forces of reaction. The logic of the situation in times of crisis then demanded that these 'bad elements' (as they were called in Maoist China) be killed, deported, or relegated to a permanently inferior status. That is very close to saying that the community of God, or the racially pure volksgemeinschaft could only be guaranteed if the corrupting elements within it were eliminated (Courtois et al. 1999)."
    - Daniel Chirot, Professor of International Studies and Sociology at the University of Washington, and Clark R. McCauley, Professor of Psychology at Bryn Mawr College and Director of the Solomon Asch Center for Study of Ethnopolitical Conflict at the University of Pennsylvania, in the chapter "Why Genocides? Are they different now than in the past?: The four main motives leading to mass political murder" in their book "Why Not Kill Them All?: The Logic and Prevention of Mass Political Murder", published by Princeton University Press.
On another note, the article has become worse is an argument to make a reversion to a previous version of the article where things were better (I have pointed out one such version in my comments above), not to delete an article. I think Volunteer Marek summarizes the vapidity of this argument well in comments posted above. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is a "summary style" article about several events, then, yes, all sources about that events are acceptable. However, to transform the article into "summary style", we need totally rewrite it based on majority views. I proposed that 11 years ago, but since then the situation hasn't improved. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How much of a total rewrite is required? The summary style portion can be structured as:
  1. Classification of mass killings (something that describes the various terminology)
    1. Disputes in classifying mass killings (something that describes the disputes in how mass killings are classified, for example the Holodomor)
  2. Relationship between communism and mass killings (various authors on whether there's any causal effect, with subtopics)
    1. Scope of mass killings committed by communist regimes (analyzing the number and types of people killed by communist regimes, with various authors giving different opionins)
  3. Mass killings in the Soviet Union
  4. Mass killings in the People's Republic of China
  5. Mass killings in Cambodia
  6. Mass killings under other communist regimes
This seems to be a feasible outline, and I see a path forward that involves a bunch of RfCs to determine how to weight content of the first two sections, but this seems like it would reasonably summarize the topic area. If the issue is the current content in some sections, then that is something that the request for comment process is made for; protracted WP:DR seems to be running into the same shortcomings of the WP:Mediation Cabal. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a starting point, please, do the following.
1. Using a neutral search procedure (not google, use google scholar or similar search engine), find sources that describe such events as Stalinist repressions, Great Chinese famine, Cambodian genocide. Provide links to your search result (that will allow me to make sure your search procedure was neutral and unbiased)
2. Select top sources (10-15, with greatest number of citations), and read what they say. It is also helpful to read the sources that are cited in those articles, and the sources that cite the sources found by you. Google scholar allows you to do that.
3. Now repeat the same procedure, but add such phrases as "Communist genocide" and variation thereof to the keywords list.
4. Compare these results with your previous search results. Do you see a significant intersection?
5. Compare what the first type sources and second type sources say.
To save other people's time, I propose to continue on my talk page.
If you do all steps 1-5, that may save a lot of our time. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is, I could find many scholarly articles published in reputable academic journals that claim that dark energy isn't real, or that traditional chinese medicine is effective, though these views are not supported by the majority of scholars. Presenting a selection of sources that agree with a particular viewpoint does not demonstrate that this represents neutral point of view. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Appeals to WP:MEDRS topics are red herrings; there's a whole different means of analysis in that realm. With respect to the analogy to "dark energy isn't real", I don't think there are any authors out there that seriously dispute that communist regimes committed mass killings... — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody disputes that communist regimes committed mass killings. The question is, is an article like this linking various atrocities committed in various times in various places over the 20th century simply because the governments that committed them shared to some extent the same ideology useful? We already have articles for all of these atrocities individually. So the question is, what is this article for? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. Currently, the article is just massive WP:SYTNH of various sources documenting different atrocities and their relation to each state that commited them, but the sources generally do not compare the regimes to each other. The notability of the underlying topic is not demonstrated. That is, the link between communist ideology as a whole (not just that of individual states) and mass killings in the 20th century. Blowing it up is the only realistic option, it's time to cut the gordian knot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS is not relevant. That is a universal procedure. Imagine you don't know anything about Cambodian genocide and Great Purge, and you want to know what is the mainstream view of causes of those events. If you do this, you get one subset of sources. If you do that, you get totally different sources. Now a question arises: which sources represent majority views? If we agree that "the sources that I like" is not the answer, then another approach is: "the sources with greater number of citations, published by reputable publishers and authored by renown experts" is a correct answer. Now try to do that exercise, and let's see what you obtain. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rummel's book Death by Government is cited 1572 times. --Nug (talk) 04:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summary on T&F reads: Rummel discusses genocide in China, Nazi Germany, Japan, Cambodia, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Poland, the Soviet Union, and Pakistan. He also writes about areas of suspected genocide: North Korea, Mexico, and feudal Russia. His results clearly and decisively show that democracies commit less democide than other regimes. The underlying principle is that the less freedom people have, the greater the violence; the more freedom, the less the violence. Thus, as Rummel says, "The problem is power. The solution is democracy. The course of action is to foster freedom." that seems like Rummel is making a link between authoritarian regimes and mass killings, not communist ones. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The summary shows the source is about Authoritarian government and mass killing and/or Mass killings under authoritarian regimes — we already have Democide for that, but of course you 'Keep' side would not support such articles, even though you should because there are sources, wouldn't you? Neither article should exist. Davide King (talk) 04:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rummel defined regime type: communist. --Nug (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean we should, too, or we may as well create an article about mass killings under aurthoritarian and totalitarian regimes, which includes Communist (merge). Tago & Wayman 2010 say: "Disagreeing with Rummel's finding that authoritarian and totalitarian government [which includes Communist, not separates it] explains mass murder, ... ." Davide King (talk) 05:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? If there is relevant scholarship from genocide scholars that passes WP:GNG, wouldn't those be appropriate articles? — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In such a case, I would favour a merge and prefer they to be discussed together in a general article, e.g. while Courtois may be considered to focus mainly on Communism (The Black Book of Communism), Rummel does not discuss Communism as a separate topic (Death by Government) — many sources about Communist mass killings are boks about genocide and mass killings either in general or during the 20th century (e.g. Mass killings in history that may not fit Genocides in history category). Davide King (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TERTIARY says: "Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." "If we had such sources, then we could write a neutral article. But we don't." Davide King (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding if we had such sources... well I mean here's one one-hundered eleven page tertiary source on crimes against humanity under communist regimes that certainly deals with the largest mass killings, and here's a tertiary source that compares and contrasts the various authors on how they conceive "genocide" (note that the review does indeed group the mass killings under communist regimes as the "communist cases" throughout). That second tertiary source reviews sources that include many that have been mentioned in this AfD: the Mann source, the Valentino source, and the Sémelin source all appear therein. These sorts of tertiary sources sorts of sources are the sorts that can help with establishing what constitutes due weight in this context as well—it's a matter of editors actually using these sorts of sources to weigh different authors—which is exactly what a good discussion on how to weigh specific content would include. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you realize that same source, written at the request of Sweden's conservative government with the objective of "elucidating and informing on communism's crimes against humanity", says Courtois and Rummel (who have been cited in support and are extensively relied in MKuCR article) are controversial or minority? See further comments about the source here. Davide King (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a separate note, there's also no requirement that WP:TERTIARY sources exist for an article to exist; Wikipedia isn't limited to what other encyclopedias and review articles of secondary sources have published (though the existence of other tertiary sources does certainly help with clarifying proper weighting). — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are not going to solve WP:NPOV issues because tertiary sources would help us determine majority, minority, and fringe views (WP:WEIGHT). Davide King (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Living History source notes that it was explicity created at the direction of the Swedish government who tasked Living History with elucidating and informing on communism’s crimes against humanity, that's hardly an impartial basis start writing a report. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And? When you write a review of crimes against humanity under commmunist regimes, you're not going to try to document them not for the purposes of taking the book and putting it in a safe deposit box for the rest of eternity—you're writing it to document the historical facts and explain it to your reader. Klas-Göran Karlsson and Michael Schoenhals are both highly respected in their fields and it's not in line with WP:RS to argue against this work in that manner. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The 1st paragraph summarizes the whole article. None of the sources are supporting the contents of this summary. Therefore, the sources are not supporing the synthesis. Moreover, the rest of the article duplicates what's already covered elsewhere in a more neutral way. Dr.KBAHT talk) 00:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Davide King, the old version is purely OR because it consolidates multiple sources on "intentional killing of large numbers of noncombatants" and claims that this concept has to do with communist regimes in the 20th century without any RS supporting this claim. Dr.KBAHT (talk) 00:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Karlsson, Courtois, Valentino, and Rummel all make that correlation, so there are certainly RS to back that claim. Many of the !voting to delete dispute that, and there was an interrupted DR process to resolve that. The problem with Global database of mass killings is that it gives undue prominence to one database (even though the title is plural), and ignores another databases used by this tertiary source on this Genocides in the 20th Century website affiliated with Oxford University. Another problem with Mass killing definitions is that it also gives undue prominence to one definition comprising of genocide + politicide, while other definitions are given equal prominence also on the same tertiary source. So there are significant unacknowledged NPOV issues with the Mass killing article. --Nug (talk) 01:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I already explained that Valentino does not make that connection. You perfectly know that, what is a reason to repeat false statements? If you want to include Courtois, the opinion of his critics (including Werth) must be presented too.
    With regard to two databases, I already explained that Rummel's data are obsolete (except for Cambodia, where they coincide with other estimates). In addition, Rummel was criticized by at least two scholars. However, I may be wrong, so, please, demonstrate (using some specialized search engine) that Rummel's database is being cited as frequently as Harff's.
    You are repeatedly ignoring my counterarguments and present the same arguments again and again. That is becoming a conduct issue. Be cautious, you are considered as duly warned about DS. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, I have access to Valentino and you are telling not to trust what I read with my own eyes? As been pointed out to you previously (Wayman&Tago) writes: "Disagreeing with Rummel’s finding that authoritarian and totalitarian government explains mass murder, Valentino (2004) argues that regime type does not matter; to Valentino the crucial thing is the motive for mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70). He divides motive into the two categories of dispossessive mass killing (as in ethnic cleansing, colonial enlargement, or collectivization of agriculture) and coercive mass killing (as in counter-guerrilla, terrorist, and Axis imperialist conquests). A complication in his work is that one of Valentino’s three main categories of killing is ‘communist’ mass killing (Valentino, 2004: 70), so he brings in regime type, after all, and so ends up a bit closer to Rummel than one would have expected at the outset of the book." So the regime type classification is still made. Harff's database is a subset of Rummel's database and used for different purposes, and usage isn't an indicator of reliability. Wayman & Tago essentially defend Rummel's dataset and his conclusion with respect to regime type. The Mass killing article cites the two criticisms but is silent on the support, hence it is POV. --Nug (talk) 03:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You just quoted the same text that I did a couple days ago. Read this quote again. It says:
1. Valentino concludes that the regime type does not matter. Importantly, he is a genocide scholar, so the main focus of his study is: how to prevent genocides/politicides? That is why the core point of his theory may be derived from his main practical conclusion. And his conclusion is: leader's personality is the main factor, so by eliminating few persons from power it is possible to prevent mass killings. That is his main conclusion, the core idea: regime type does not matter.
2. However, as Wayman&Tago note, Valentino partially modified his concept and admitted that mass killings in Communist states had something in common. Therefore, he admitted that, to some degree, regime type matters.
And now, please, answer my question: "What is the main conclusion Valentino made: that there is a significant linkage, or that the linkage is, by and large, not too significant? Paul Siebert (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you haven't eventually read The Practice and Theory of Bolshevism by Russell, have you? Because if you did, you would likely understand that the conclusion you're attributing to Valentino might be actually true on both these aspects - revolution executed by the recipe of Marxism-Leninism brings a very specific kind of leaders to the power, by means of natural selection. People who are, by Russell's first-hand observations in 1920's Russia, cruel, fanatical and merciless, almost religious in their willingness to commit mass-scale atrocities in order to achieve the utopian goal of the ideology. Which is precisely why he saw specific type of leaders and "something in common" among all these countries. Cloud200 (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloud200:, can you please explain me the following: how could Russel see something in common between the events that haven't happened yet? Correct me if I am wrong, but the text you are referring to was published in 1920.
With regard to the rest, don't you think you put a horse before the cart? In reality, most "Communist" regimes that committed mass atrocities came to power in the societies where huge social tensions already existed. Khmer Rouge came to power not in some idyllic and peaceful rural Cambodia, but in a country where a rural Khmer population was desperately poor, and their hatred towards a relatively wealthy urban population, which was mostly Vietnamese and Chinese, was extremely high. This, as well as extreme Khmer nationalism and revenge culture (historically specific to Khmer), converted teh society to the barrel of gasoline. Pol Pot's Maoism was such a spark the ignited that fire.
Now explain me what is in common between this event and Stalin's deliberate program of extermination of his political opponents (a significant fraction of whom were Communists)? Many authors, including David-Fox (whom we are currently discussing at the article's talk page) maintain that the "generic Communism" theory this article is pushing is flawed and ahistorical. Have you read the David-Fox's article? Paul Siebert (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to step into the same river again as I've explained that to you probably 20x already over the last 2 months, which has been duly ignored. I'm very well aware of your bias in ignoring Red terror and War communism as causes for "excess mortality", as you like to call it. Russell didn't - he saw mass-scale killing and state-induced famines first-hand as they were happening 1917-1920, and he linked them to the fanatical and utopian conviction that extermination of "reactionary" classes is just a logical step in a "natural" process of transition towards communism as determined "scientifically" by Marxism-Leninism. Moreover, he correctly predicted - already in 1920 - the escalation of violence in Soviet Russia, negative selection among the Bolshevik leaders and their attempts to "export the revolution" globally, all of which happened. Russell obviously couldn't have been writing about China or Cambodia, as you are trying reductio ad absurdum here, but he correctly predicted the general trend in Marxist movements worldwide. Which wasn't that difficult after all, if you actually have read Marx, Engels and Lenin even in 1917. Cloud200 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems your problem is that you take all information from google and popular books or websites. I myself was surprised to see how different are the results if you search sources using google and google.scholar/jstor. Fortunately for me, my employer provides me with access to majority of top rank scholarly journals, and, in contrast to 99% of people who !vote here, I bothered to go to my library, take Rummel's book (which appeared to be surprisingly small) and read it in full. His sources for the USSR are awful and desperately outdated, and all his numbers for USSR have nothing in common with modern consensus figures. Guess why no scholars (except Dulich and Karlsson) criticized him? Because real experts in Soviet history almost completely ignore him. That is easy to check: just try to find how frequently his figures and his theories are cited by such experts Soviet history.
To this end, do the following: open the text of the Black Book of Communism (sic!) and read Werth. Unfortunately, this document is a scan, so I cannot use search tools, but a brief look at the list of references demonstrates that Werth cites almost all good authors I myself am using for editing Russia related Wikipedia articles. Therefore, we may consider those authors as main experts in history of Soviet Russia. However, I couldn't find Rummel among them. How do you explain that fact? How do you explain the fact that "democide" concept is never mentioned?
Cross-references are a very important tool, because the authors that belong to the same or closely related school of thought are interconnected by a dense network of cross-citations. The lack of references to Rummel is an indication that he represents a scholl of thought that is totally isolated from the community of experts in Soviet history. That raises a very serious question about relative weight of these two POVs.
One more note. These authors frequently cite the name of Courtois. However, usually, this name appears because they cite Werth (and Courtois is mentioned because he was an editor). Werth's opoinion on Communism and mass killings is totally different: in his introduction, he explained that tensions were growing in Russia long before Communist came to power, and Bolsheviks resorted to violence only after they realised that they plans face a severe opposition. Paul Siebert (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? People who continually claim that WP:SIGCOV doesn't exist despite it being shown to them a gazillion times now, ought to be topic banned for being disruptive. --Nug (talk) 15:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or significant rewrite: While there is a lot of well sourced information in the article on mass killings that occurred under various comunist regimes, the majority of experts cited do not link these deaths together and ascribe them to communist ideology specifically. (like the 1932-33 famine in the USSR and the mass starvation in Cambodia have anything in common, given the former has been attributed to colossal mistakes by a regime industrializing ruthlessly and at breakneck speed, whereas the latter was the exact opposite: a bizarre regime - hardly “communist” but an abomination created by the Cold War by my estimation - that emptied cities at gunpoint to completely restart its civilization. But yeah they are both simply “communist famines”. LOL!) The sources that do are some of the weakest and are often non-experts on these regimes, including fringe libertarians like Rummel (who should have been laughed out of academia when he asserted in his 1990 work Lethal Politics that the USSR was responsible for 62 million "democides"), rabid anti-comminist ideologues like Courtois (who was denounced by the strongest authors of the same work for his outrageous introduction, which is what is used here to link these killings together, not so much the other chapters of the BBoC), and Valentino who is a non-expert on any of these regimes, and to my knowledge not a Sovietologist or a Sinologist or anything of the sort, yet his work is cited throughout this article as if he is the most prominent expert on these issues. Some of his numbers seem to be pulled out of thin air, like in the Other regimes section. To my knowledge he does not elaborate in his 2004 book how he reached these numbers.
The other issue is that a huge number of deaths attributed to communism here come from events that are not mass killings at all according to many experts on these regimes, such as famines in particular (see S.G. Wheatcroft, J. Arch Getty, Mark Tauger, etc.). Getty in particular notes in the text that famine deaths make up roughly half of the deaths under communism. This makes this article very different (and flawed) when it is compared to the article Anti-communist mass killings, as the events listed there are all deliberate killings, and there is no doubt that the killings were motivated at least in part by anti-communism, as several sources there make clear.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. The subject is highly notable thus deletion would make no sense. desmay (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The topic is obviously notable, and being in need of improvements is not a reason to delete.  Mailman9  (talk)  15:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is extremely important and removing it from the Wikipedia is the worst possible outcome. Both sides of political spectrum have strong feelings about this topic and removing the article won't solve any problems - just make them worse. If you think that the article is badly written then you should absolutely try to improve it. Maybe add a box saying that this is controversial issue. But removing it has too strong connotation with censorship and will solidify notion that Wikipedia is biased towards far-left. Removing things we don't like is not the solution. Gumaaaa (talk) 15:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have repeatedly tried to do that and fix such issues (NPOV/OR/SYNTH/WEIGHT) and controversies (for over a decade now) but no progress has been made since the last AfD. Reducing our legitimate arguments and concerns, which have been unaddressed and hence deletion/full rewrite seems to be the only solution, to "I don't like it" is absurd. Davide King (talk) 15:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You and everyone else were free to revert my edits at that time, and then discuss them individually, but you did not. Acting as though before my edits the article was perfectly fine, which I can accept as your personal view but not as a fact, as discussions on the talk page demonstred, is disingenuous to say the least. Davide King (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latest version with this lead did not include the primary tags (it included NPOV/SYNTH tags, as we were discussing them, so I thought that it was fair), and while you may think it was the same as this, it is not exactly the same (we have disagreement and understanding about the topic and its scope), and this version attempted to summarize the body (e.g. mentioning Stalin's, Mao's, and Pol Pot's regimes extensively discussed in the body).
  • Both versions included some mention of criticism and controversy, which your preferred version did not mention and/or discuss at all (contrary to WP:LEAD). The moderator at WP:DRNMKUCR showed no consensus on whether to revert in toto (if they said it should have been reverted, I would have respected it), and some of my edits have since been reverted while the AfD was, and still is, ongoing — I did not revert back before the page was protected. Davide King (talk) 16:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nug, Mikehawk10 and Volunteer Marek. This topic's notability has been decided on 4 times already. Some folks seem to have an ideological aversion to the topic. but it is still a notable topic. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Redacted) 50.89.97.148 (talk) 15:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep More than enough proof of sources and importance listed above. No need to reiterate. Wikipedia is not made better by the deletion of this article. Also, 4th nomination? There needs to be some sort of limit to the number of attempts to try and remove something someone doesn't like. -- MeHolla! 16:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The initial argument here for deletion is that the article violates WP:SYNTH and at the time of proposal the title was explicated from the content. A follow-on argument is that the article additionally violates WP:NPOV. However, wikipedia as a whole is full of articles of this nature. Consider Genocides in history, Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, or Public image of George W. Bush. All of these articles lack the title in the initial paragaph, all of them explicate their subject, all of them are inherently contain collections of incidents that wikipedia editors are choosing as connected. The issue here is the existence of these sorts of articles as a whole. As much as some fellow editors would choose to dismiss the works of Valentino and Rummel, those works (and others) exist and document at least one scholarly line of thought which has drawn a direct correlation between communism and democide. Therefore, the topic of "Mass killings under Communist regimes" exists and is debated in academia. The bigger issue to me is this type of article as a whole. I believe we are not served by editors attempting to shine a light one-by-one on articles they disfavor, instead a committee should consider the larger question of how to handle all articles of this type and deal one way or another with the class as a whole. - Hoplon (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-on to my above comment. I also agree with those who point out this has been proposed multiple times in the past. Opponents to the article should not keep getting "another kick at the cat". Wikipedia treats passed votes for deletion as overwhelmingly hard to reverse, passed votes against deletion should be accorded the same respect. - Hoplon (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This was a traditional topic of historical literature, and a subject in academia. It boggles the mind that it is up for debate, let alone deletion. Dahn (talk) 16:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep The article is well sourced and has survived 3 previous nominations, if it was determined to be fine the last 3 times, then we should leave it at that Xander11012 (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one heck of a read, but I haven't seen an argument here any more substantive than the three previous attempts to delete. This isn't synth any more than any single page on wiki is synth. Is the amalgamation of various RS. Obviously notable topics and no material objections to the sources. The thrust of the delete feels a bit more akin to "I don't like the two topics being connected" or a no true Scotsman fallacy. But those are the connections the sources make, not us. Squatch347 (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This information should not be memory-holed. If something is incorrect, change it, but history should not be hidden or deleted for ideological reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volatile.memory (talk • contribs) 16:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC) — Volatile.memory (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Loads of scholarly research on this specific topic cited in the article, clearly indicating it is not synthesis, regardless of issues that may exist with the lead. —Torchiest talkedits 16:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The topic does not exist in reliable sources. There are of course studies of individual cases: Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Kampuchea, which are sometimes grouped in genocide studies. But there is no literature that connections Communism and mass killings. For the same reaaon, we don't have an article about mass killings under capitalist regimes, where the Holocaust and American genocide of aboriginal people are connected as a result of having capitalist systems in both countries. TFD (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The allegation that deletion is warranted I notice only comes from persons who are interested in socialist topics. I question whether their motive is as pure as they frame it. Even if it is, the notable bias and prejudice they have subconsciously should be taken into account. Moving to my point of why this is a strong keep, the article is sourced by several notable papers and articles that focus on the atrocities committed throughout history. E.g., Barbra Harff; Daniel Goldhagen. A criticism I hear is that they don't call it "communist mass killings," But if you were to read the literature, rather than the title, then you would see that they specifically note communist regimes when they discuss those regimes' atrocities. Additionally, this article has more if not the same amount of sources as the "anti-communist" mass killings. Furthermore, the allegation that there is no literature here is empirically untrue, and to deny is to cover one's ears. You have made your appeal, but don't base it on illogical foundations. Arguing as the user above me is fruitless, there is no article about mass killings from capitalist regimes because that hotly-debated literature is specifically placed in the Anti-communist mass killings article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChronosTruth (talk • contribs) 17:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC) — ChronosTruth (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Strong Keep Enough is enough, really, this article is 12 years old, about extremely important topic, especially now when we can observe rebirth of communist ideology worldwide, and was already RfD'd three times. Not to mention the work of many contributors that should be respected. Not only it should be kept, also the further RfDs shouldn't be proceeded as this is ridiculous. Platyna (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Dahn, Platyna, Mikehawk10, Volunteer Marek, and many others. And yes, I do think there are some bad-faith WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments going on here. — Czello 17:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per too many people that I'm too lazy to type out on a keyboard that doesn't work half the time. Wilh3lmGo here to trout me if I do a stupid 17:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Mikehawk10 and others. PS. Number of mass killings under those regimes is extremely high. Officers from my own country were murdered in Katyn by the NKVF. Qba0202 (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a topic of the utmost importance to have available on a free, universal encyclopedia, especially in times like these, especially when it passes both WP:V and WP:GNG; censorship isn't a solution. Since this is the fourth time some apparently heavily indoctrinated subjects desperately want to get rid of this specific page, it should be stopped from getting nominated for deletion, to save everyone's time in the future OmegaPog(smalltalk) 18:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep per Volunteer Marek and others. The complaints in the nom do not appear to be so troubling as to require deletion rather than cleanup. WP:TIND and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. A glance at the recent talk page activity suggests that this is an escalation of a long-term dispute rather than a typical AfD situation, which further illustrates why this AfD is a poor move. NPOV issues are important, but for deletion to be appropriate under these circumstances, the parties calling for its deletion need to demonstrate that there is no possible article on this subject which could satisfy NPOV. I see no convincing case that this standard is met. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Seems to easily pass WP:V and WP:GNG, if the article needs work, and I agree that it does, that work needs to be put in. AFD isn't for removing articles you think are bad, it is for removing articles that don't meet inclusion criteria. SamStrongTalks (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This article is more important and relevant now than it has ever been since 1991. Communism is experiencing a massive growth in poplarity, and the idea that this article should be deleted is doubtlessly borne of some misguided desire to make communism itself seem acceptable, but that is not a good enough excuse to delete what is clearly a relevant and important article. An article called mass killings under capitalist regimes would be equally important and relevant. Johnathan 2001 (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep unless we also remove the pages for "Mass killings under colonial regimes" and "Mass killings under anti-communist regimes." All three need to be tagged for deletion together, or none of them. Delhatch (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a note Mass killings under colonial regimes is a (IMO rather poor) redirect to Genocide of indigenous peoples while Mass killings under anti-communist regimes redirects to Anti-communist mass killings. While both redirects are questionable, neither article they lead to has substantive issues and regardless, as redirects, they should be discussed at WP:RFD. BSMRD (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m a Strong Keep !vote but something definitely happened here. Volunteer Marek 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What happened here is the consequence of thoroughly-misleading canvassing on 4Chan, and probably elsewhere too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was informed of how Fox News sites have exploited this page's hot-button marketabilty, perhaps I should be embarrassed, crawl under a rock, and "be banned". ~ cygnis insignis 19:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only you are breaking the rules of this discussion, you also disseminate the false notion that users with many edits can't do foolish things. RfDing this article for the fourth time, instead of spending the time to improve it, was a foolish move. Platyna (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not "breaking any rules" and I am not "disseminating false notions". I happen to be an uninvolved administrator, and I do not find your participation on this page constructive.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling people liars? Ad personam? Are not these rules infractions? Seriously nobody cares how many edits X or Y has, not to mention that quality over quantity is what counts. What matters is what the person says - if they have a valid point or not. And do not spam my talk page with...no idea what was that...mod threats? I am not afraid. My family fought with murderous regimes since hundreds of years. Platyna (talk) 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT Communism is evil does not justify setting aside WP:OR and WP:Synth to make a WP:Coatrack. This is a collection of disparate topics being treated as homogeneous to make a point. Slywriter (talk) 18:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really believe that the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article, as WP:TNT describes? The current state of the article isn't how TNT is actually weighted; if there's a better version of the article (and several editors seem to have pointed out that there was), then a WP:TNT claim would actually need to show why that revision of this page would also need to be deleted. I really don't see any strong argument for TNT that incorporates the whole history of the article and proceeds to say that it is wholly and entirely useless for the purpose of an encyclopedia. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Johnathan 2001, OmegaPog and many others. As a person who was born in a communist country, I strongly object to deletion. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it. Tomek Mrugalski (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The page is imperfect but it provides a good way to group all these atrocities. There is no reason to delete the page – it is a good collection of data. Someone doing this research would need to start from scratch. Is the page imperfect? Yes. Does it need to be deleted? No. — Redderc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete, or refocus article I don't buy the synthesis arguments, but the page as a whole is too long (larger than the main communism article, for example) and could grow and grow. I think it would be better to refocus it to just the parts that contain scholarly discussion of the topic as a whole, as the rest is found in other articles. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It is as long as the list of communist artocities. Platyna (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't "as long as the list of communist atrocities" because it's not about "communist atrocities", a term that appears zero times in the article. It's not as long as the "list of communist mass killings", because it's not in list format and instead is in encyclopedic form and is severely bloated because there doesn't seem to be an end to how much you can put into an article with a loose umbrella topic like this. RoseCherry64 (talk) 18:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"There were no communist atrocities because there is were no such word used in the article. Got it. Platyna (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote from weak delete to delete. The repeated pattern of the opposition to this AfD derailing in baseless accusations of any editor not voting keep doing so because they want to deny anything bad communist governments have ever done, like above, convinced me. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I oppose deletion because it has already been considered 5 times with the results being to keep or no consensus. Good faith or not, it should not be allowed to renominate an article for deletion over and over until the nominators finally get the outcome they want. JD Lambert(T|C) 19:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify Is the subject notable? Probably. Is the article fit for mainspace? I believe the consensus here and what I agree with is definitely no. The article is a dumpster fire, just like with this AfD, the DR, and the right-wing people who are trying to canvass keep votes onto the article, which combined probably have many more words written than what's in the actual article. Draftifying this while the DR process moves on and the article re-worked seems like a good compromise solution. I would like to note though that arguments to keep based off how old the article is or that this article has survived 5 AfD's arn't relevent, the AfDs were 10 years ago and standards were different back then. Jumpytoo Talk 19:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, if only because it is an oft-discussed subject. Many articles on here describe narratives that are debatable. This is a frequently discussed narrative. I happen to agree that there is a need to address the pattern of mass killings in communist states, but also agree that narratives I don’t believe in should also receive coverage if they are mentioned frequently in reliable sources. Deletion arguments (as have some of the the keep arguments) seem questionably partisan. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in accordance with WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. Not impressed with a nakedly political attempt to censor history. FunkyDuffy (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone else find it odd how many long-dormant accounts keep popping up on this discussion, or is it just me? clpo13(talk) 19:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This disucssion has been ruined. The amount of SPAs and canvassed accounts has completely disrupted it. I see us hurtling towards "No Consensus" at a breackneck speed. BSMRD (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When a AfD proposal is so blatantly bad that it forces people to return, there’s a problem with the proposal, not the editors. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or may be cross out canvassed accounts and ignore what they say?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ymblanter:, what is a reason to ignore fresh arguments? I would love to see fresh strong arguments in support for "keep". As soon as admins are not counting !voted (they are not supposed to, aren't they?) everything should be quite ok. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are free to tag comments/!votes they think were canvassed with the template mentioned at the top of the page. Same with SPAs. I'm sure the closing admin will consider all arguments and concerns when closing. SamStrongTalks (talk) 19:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may open a can of worms. Do you really believe that is falsifiable? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My main point is that is it more useful than complaining about the discussion being ruined. I mean, they could restart this discussion again in a few months, but a 5th AfD seems like a poor idea. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Clpo13: This isn't a valid argument, assume good faith, in addition there is no prohibition against lapses and going dormant in editing before returning. This is all very well established Wiki policy, when a deletion discussion this embarrassing exists you should expect a return of inactive accounts TheFinalMigration (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And how should they know this discussion is here, pray tell? Certainly, there's nothing wrong with a lapse in editing activity, but when someone's first act in a year or more is to come straight to this discussion when their editing history doesn't show previous engagement in the article or topic area, it sets off some WP:CANVASSING alarm bells. clpo13(talk) 19:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Clpo13: I'd imagine it is due to the fact that this discussion has received coverage in media. you're correct this does raise concerns of canvassing, But I've yet to see any specific evidence of recruitment or attempts to convince editors to participate in this discussion. And then there is the difficulty of establishing which editors may have been canvassed based on only hunches. I do want to make clear that I am not attempting to engage in disruptive or argumentative discussion but simply attempt to contribute to this discussion and am hazy around the specifics of canvassing and the appropriate response to it, especially in regards to what action should be undertaken to make a decision in this discussion. TheFinalMigration (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I didn't support deletion during the last AfD, but recent events forced me to reconsider my opinion.
With regard to a potential canvassing problem, I see no problem with canvassing at all if a closing admin will analyse arguments, not count !votes. Not only that will eliminate all negative effects of canvassing, that wil be in an agreement with our policy, which says that consensus is not achieved by voting. I respectfully request admins to ignore, at least, for a while, any accusations of canvassing, because canvassed users may bring fresh arguments. So far, I see not many strong arguments in support of keeping. Below, I summarize the most important ones, and supplement them with critcal analysis. I respectfully request the closing admin to take into account arguments strengths, not the number of voter. Of course, I am not neutral in that dispute, but, please, keep in mind that I didn't support deletion during the last AfD. If I missed some important argument, please, let me know, and I add it to the list
A summary and criticism of arguments in support for "Keep"
  • "The topic is notable". By that time, at least 13 users put forward this argument. This argument addresses the reason for deletion #8, and the rationale is typically as follows: "The article tells about important events, so its removal from Wikipedia is unacceptable" This argument has at least thee major flaws.
  • First, this argument implies that by deleting this article we remove some significant information from Wikipedia. That is not true. In reality, almost every piece of information presented in this article already exists in Wikipedia (in such articles as Great Purge, Soviet Famine of 1932-33, Great Chinese famine, Red Terror, Democide, Mass killing, Criticism of Communist party rule, and many, many others. Therefore, deletion will not result in removal of any significant information from Wikipedia; this part of the argument is obviously false, and it should be disregarded.
  • Second, if some other information (in addition to the abive mentioned) exists in the article, than what is that information about? An obvious answer is: the article may be notable because it contains a narrative that links all events ("mass killings") to Communism as a major common cause. Is this narrative notable? The question is not obviuous, because we already have the articles about Rummel's Democide and Courtois's introduction to The Black Book of Communism, and there is no reason to have one more if no other sources exist. What other sources cover that topic? @Piotrus: tried to address this issue during one previous AfD, and he provided this list, which contains references to stories to separate individual events. That is not an argument. To prove that the topic is notable notable, we need to demonstrate that a large body of scholarship exist that (i) discuss a linkage between Communism in general and mass killings, and (ii) that are linked by a dense network of cross-references with the works by historians who study each event separately. I made several google.scholar searches in attempt to find those sources, but I didn't find much. Of course, you can find sources using google, but they are mostly newspaper op-eds or links to some private web sites, or popular books. I found no serious scholarly sources so far: this, this returns mostly irrelevant sources, or the sources discussing mass killings of Communists. My other attempts were not encouraging either, and everybody can repeat them and make sure I am doing my best to be as neutral as possible. Keeping in mind that the Black Book, which makes such a generalization, caused a storm of criticism and support, I conclude no serious sources existed on that topic before its publication. I am honestly trying to continue digging, and if anybody finds a reasonable amount of well cited peer-reviewed publications on that subject, kindly let me know. Until then, I respectfully request a closing admin to ignore !votes claiming that the topic is notable.
  • Third, I can imagine only one option that will allow us to speak the article meets a notability criterion: the discussion of linkage of mass killings and Communism, which would include a comprehensive analysis of opposite opinia may be a notable topic. However, that requires a complete re-write (and possibly rename), and during last 11 years we failed to achieve a consensus about that. Therefore, I have no illusion that this way to save the article may work. The first reason for deletion is the criterion #8. The article's "added information value" is negligible, and therefore, it must be deleted as non-notable.
  • The article is not a content fork This argument addresses the reason #5, and it is less frequent. Frankly, the users who say that provide not much explanation, usually they just claim everything is ok. Others say that no example of POV-forking was provided, which is blatantly false, because I already provided several examples. Thus, Great Chinese famine, which tells about the same event that is discussed in this article using different words, different sources, and comes to different conclusions. That is an obvious POV-fork. Another example are the articles about Soviet famines. Cambodian genocide discusses many factors that caused that mass killings, whereas this article implies Communism and its ideology was a primary one. Mass killing tells a neutral story about genocide studies, but this article implies that they are preoccupied with "Communist mass killings". I can provide more examples, but these examples are sufficient to claim that the article should be deleted as a huge POV-fork.
Initially, I was not a proponent of deletion, and I invested a lot of my time in attempts to convert the article to something reasonable. One possibility would be to make a true "summary style" article. However, that would require a global rearrangement of its structure, and that faced a severe opposition of those who believes this article is always a "summary style", and there is nothing to fix there. Therefore, the second and separate reason for deletion is the criterion #5. The article is an unfixable POV-fork, and therefore, it must be deleted.
  • "The article is well sourced. It seems these votes are trying to address WP:ATD-E, but, alas, they are flawed either. During this discussion, I provided examples of severe and blatant misuse or direct misinterpretation of sources, but my voice seems to fall in deaf ears: people seem to ignore my proposal to check those sources or my analysis. If the argument of that type will be accepted by a closing admin, that may create a very dangerous precedent: that may mean that a community can, by merely !voting, and ignoring any analysis of sources usage, just conclude "everything is ok", and keep seemingly well sourced misinformation for decades. That may be a very dangerous precedent, and I am seriously pondering about addressing to ArbCom if that happens. I am sure Arbitrators will take that case, because that aspect of thsi AfD is not a content dispute.
My conclusion is: the article must be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON ##5, 8, and per WP:ATD-E. All claims that these three reasons are not applicable to this case are weak and poorly supported. I am open to fresh arguments, and I am waiting for fresh arguments is support for keeping the article.
As an additional demonstration of my point, try to do a thought experiment: imagine, the World War II article was deleted. That immediately creates a yawning abyss in Wikipedia, because almost every source puts a story about every individual battle of theatre of war into a more global context, in a context of WWII. We have a lot of fundamental books, from Churchill to Overy, who draw a global picture, and these general books are being widely cited by experts in more narrow fields. Operation Bagration is discussed in a context of D-day, Battle of Kursk is usually linked with Operation Husky etc. All sources form a well defined hierarchy, from more local events to the global conflict as a whole.
Now, please, answer, can you name a set of sources about "Communist mass killings" that even remotely resemble an ensemble of WWII sources? Do you sincerely believe I myself was not trying to find anything before coming here? With exception of a couple of controversial books (each of which already has their own article, and, importantly, even barely cite each other) no such sources exist. And that is not because each of those subtopics has not been studied: there is a lot of sources about each event taken separately, but they form many separate domains that are poorly connected to each other and some "global Communism" Paul Siebert (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hope I'm adding this right, but I think its as simple as "Articles on historical events should never be removed no matter how dark or tragic they are" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.31.92 (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 71.221.31.92 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. [reply]
You don't need to WP:BADGER people. --Nug (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to WP:BADGER people. --Nug (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should I understand it as you accuse me of misbehavior?--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a friendly reminder that you do not have to convince every keep !voter, just the closing admin. --Nug (talk) 20:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Because otherwise it looked suspiciously close to a personal attack. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Knock it off, both of you. Paul Siebert, you don't need to rehash the same argument that you've been having for the past few days with every newcomer to this discussion. Nug, you are not the right messenger for badgering concerns in this discussion, and doing so repeatedly, in subthreads that are in sight of each other on the page, is, well, quite funny if I'm being honest. But Paul, even if it is mildly tendentious, it's not a personal attack. signed, Rosguill talk 21:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rosguill, as you can see, this newcomer made their post few minutes after I presented convincing evidences of NPOV violations. It would be quite natural to inform him about this my post, because they couldn't see it when they were writing their post.
Actually, it seems I presented all my arguments, and, since there seems to be no significantly fresh arguments, I will be watchlisting this page just occasionally. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And, maybe you didn't see that, but there is a message on the top of this page that informs everybody that that is not a vote, but a a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. It does not say I need to convince an admin, it says we should try to convince each other. Therefore, an attempt to intimidate other users may be seen as a disruption of the process. Please, don't do that anymore. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am trying to keep two of the only editors in this discussion that have made substantive arguments from pointless bickering, no more no less. signed, Rosguill talk 21:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, Rosguill, we both are experienced opponents, who are in a conflict during last 13 years, and we both are too cautious to give each other a pretext for AE. I apologise for distracting you with all that b/s.  :) Paul Siebert (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reminding other editors of policy isn't disrupting the process. Doing so repeatedly isn't particularly helpful though. SamStrongTalks (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable topic with sufficient sourcing as already mentioned previously by Nug and Mikehawk10. I also don't see any particularly egregious NPOV violation here. Obviously there is always room for improvements, but state of article doesn't look so bad at all. Not to mention that if one compares the state of article during the last AfD in 2010 [26], to what it is now at the time of writing this comment [27], improvements have been very significant.--Staberinde (talk) 20:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per most of the above but in particular AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Anyone seriously suggesting that this topic is not notable would cause me to have serious doubts regarding their competency to even discuss the subject. I also have to agree with some others that there is more than a whiff of IDONTLIKEIT in this nomination and discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedians can n't write history. We cant pick a book on Stalin, another book on Mao, etc, and build an article combining all of them. It is Synth. Cinadon36 20:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's rules against synthesizing research here falls under the banner of WP:No Original Research. For this to be the case, there would have to be a dearth of third-party, reliable reporting on the article's subject. This is not the case, as revealed by the simple Google search of the relevant terms. Even if the article was poorly written, the topic merits retention on the basis of its notability and verifiability. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I will reiterate the words of another commenter with whom I agree "As many others have pointed out this article easily passes WP:GNG criteria, additionally disagree with the synthesis argument as any article that lists multiple events with common factors would likewise fall victim to this argument. Finally the WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT vibes are strong here." Especially with regards to relentless editing where none was needed. (my opinion of course) to the point where the current article is inferior to an earlier revision. rocket in the sky (talk) 20:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC) — rocket in the sky (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I strongly encourage everyone citing WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT to actually read that essay, as well as the examples provided at WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and then compare with the actual rationale cited for deletion. To reduce the arguments of the pro-deletion camp to "they just don't like the article" is grossly reductionist and inaccurate. BSMRD (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The fact someone has a different opinion does not mean they didn't read it. Current rationale for deletion is flawed and considering this is 4th RfD of 12 years old, large and actively edited article, this is ridiculous and clearly WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. I am amused and annoyed at once.Platyna (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically you and every other editor who just posts "this is ridiculous and clearly screams/smells/whatevers of WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is in effect saying WP:ILIKEIT. Making vague (and at this point very reptitive) aspersions about the actual arguments for deletion is not in fact sufficient rationale to keep the article. BSMRD (talk) 22:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, you got me, I love communist genocides, especially the names of my family members shining on Katyn massacre memorials. I have a suggestion - how about you will start abiding to the goal of this discussion and actually comment about the article, not the participants? Platyna (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please click the things people link to. WP:ILIKEIT does not mean that you like the content of the article, rather that you like the articles existence or think the subject "deserves" an article and that is the whole of your argument. I could also point to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS for similarly applicable guidelines. I'm getting tired of personal attacks rising from a failure of reading comprehension. BSMRD (talk) 01:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attack which prompted the semi-protection of this page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Do you think anyone likes Communist Genocides? Actually read what WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT is about before pointing fingers like it would help your case. A vague statement does not constitute as such too. 191.136.193.249 (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. I am not voting, and am hesitant to participate at all, because I may qualify as having been WP:CANvassed. I noticed (though was not the intended audience for) canvassing on this topic on Twitter, which piqued my curiousity. I've read the current AFD discussion and agree that it reeks of canvassing, so I really hope that my comment isn't seen as adding to that problem. If I could vote, I would vote weak keep, and if someone who seems to know what they're doing tells me I am allowed to vote, I will do so. My reasoning is as follows:
This article is not a POV fork. Several deleters have suggested that the initial keep response engaged only with notability and failed to address other rationales for deletion, especially the argument that this article is an unfixable POV fork. Some of those keepers have responded to that criticism already, but I wanted to share my own view.
First, it seems to me that the question of whether this article is a POV fork is inextricable from the question of whether this article's topic is sufficiently WP:Notable to justify its own article. There is no article on this topic except for this one (with the possible exception of Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, and this article clearly is not a POV fork of that one). There are, as Paul Siebert has pointed out, articles of broader scope (for instance, Mass killing and Communism) and articles of narrower scope (Paul mentions the Great Chinese Famine article) than this one. But this particular topic is not "mass killings" or "communism," nor is it any of the individual incidents that are cited as examples. So if the topic is sufficiently notable to merit an article, then this article is not an impermissible POV fork—merely an effort, however imperfect, to discuss a notable topic that would not otherwise have its own article. For that reason, I regard the discussion of POV-forking as a distraction.
Second, on the merits, I do not see how this article can be considered a POV fork. Any given assertion in the article could, of course, be challenged on NPOV grounds, but the sense I get is that some deleters feel that the existence of this article itself expresses a POV by implying that there is a causal link between communist ideology and mass killings. That does not seem right to me. Whatever definition of "mass killing" one uses from the WP:RSes, I think we have to agree that there have been mass killings under communist regimes, which is all the article title says. The article goes on to discuss explanations that have been offered for those mass killings, some of which involve communism directly and some of which do not. All of that seems in-bounds to me.
This topic is notable. I was persuaded by Mhawk10's | post, which quotes several sources that quite plainly consider the relationship between communist regimes and mass killings as a discrete topic. Paul argues that there are not enough sources that (a) consider communist regimes on the whole rather than one or a handful of specific regimes and (b) take the position that communism was a major factor in the mass killings by those regimes. But sources that argue for and against a link between communism and killings both help establish the notability of the topic, which is mass killings under communism, because both of those categories of sources are about that topic.
This article does not suffer from egregious NPOV or verifiability failures. As I said, any specific assertion in this article could, I'm sure, be challenged as biased. But the WP:ATD-E policy governing deletion for NPOV problems is for "severe" NPOV or verifiability problems. Maybe I've missed it, but I don't really think anyone has shown that such failures exist or that they warrant deletion (offending articles "may" be deleted). The closest I saw to a compelling argument on that front was that the article was noted to have problems 11 years ago, and since then it has not improved. 11 years is a long time for an article to be bad. But it turns out the article spent about 8 years of that time under sanctions that prevented it from being edited, so the repeated appeal to "11 years ago" strikes me as disingenuous.
Just my thoughts, for whatever they're worth. Cedric Contra (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cedric Contra: In answer to your concern about the validy of your vote, being linked here from elsewhere doesn't disqualify you from participating, especially if you have a well-nuanced answer (and you do). As the canvassing box at the top of the page says, However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. — Czello 22:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Czello: Thank you for pointing that out. Cedric Contra (talk) 22:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Relatively poor quality article but important subject. Remember that secondary sources are likely to be biased in a particular way on this subject, and NPOV does not mean "copy the POV of reliable sources". Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd dispute this, as worded. NPOV means that we represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. I read that to mean that we do indeed copy the viewpoints of reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of those sources. If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean? Make up our own ideas about which viewpoints are to be given prominence, in disregard to the reliable sources, and just have circular, unsourced arguments until someone gives up? MarshallKe (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. First, this article provides a good summary of information that would otherwise be disbursed among multiple Wikipedia pages. Better to keep all the information in one place. Second, many of the comments for Delete claim that that article is a mess; that may be the case. The solution, however, is to fix the article, not delete it. — Coulson Lives (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think that voting twice is ok? Do you also vote twice at the elections in your country?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Read the beginning of the page, this is not an election, it's a discussion, he probably just cloned the paragraph by mistake. Fixed it. Your comment is not exactly a WP:PA, but has the same problems as one. Please keep the discussion productive. 191.136.193.249 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Example of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT with people getting paid to gang up against the article. Shove your 300 up yours! Disgusted by people twisting WP like this. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very curious if there is any evidence of the conflict of interest alleged here, since I have not seen it mentioned elsewhere in the discussion. Terminator 2 really happened (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Total WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT claim hided between pretty words. The "poor quality" is only used to minimize the true intention burning of this information, cause we all know a poorly made article ins't enough to delete the whole thing. 191.136.193.249 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The arguments are clear and well defended. The article currently presents a conflagration of events only loosely connected. Each of those events can be notable enough, but it makes tno sense to have articles like this. Pointing out a connection between them is flirting with original research.--Freddy eduardo (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Keep or (less preferably) Merge with Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. I will note that there has been significant coverage of the link between communist states and mass killings/crimes against humanity. Also there definitely has been a significant amount of pro-communist pov-pushing in this topic recently. But, regardless, there's clearly a link between these two topics, there's been extensive coverage of it, and this same article has been put up for deletion three times before. This is re-raising old arguments for the simple purpose that they disagree with the article. A merge is understandable, especially if the article is such a mess (although it seems okay from my perspective) - and it does seem to be a subset of the more general crimes against humanity article. (Also, as a side note, this AFD has gotten rather long and its making it rather hard for me to edit it. My computer is reasonably powerful, so I'd say we should do something about that. Maybe split it up? Unsure.) ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ThePlatypusofDoom: Thanks, I fully understand whom you meant, right? That is a direct personal attack, and a very silly attack, because I am building my arguments almost exclusively no not cherry-picked English peer-reviewed sources. So, your post contains a direct personal attack. I suggest you to choose one of two options: you either present solid arguments demonstrating that I am a civil POV-pusher. If the arguments will be convincing, will change my vote from "Delete" to Support", if you fail to provide strong arguments, you withdraw your vote, and vote to "Delete". Another option is that you submit AE request against me. I am considered duly warned, so the admins will accept it. In your report, you will accuse me of civil POV-pushing, and I will request for WO:BOOMERANG. Deal? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You assume that I was referring to you. Also, you've made responses to a very large number of keep !votes in this AfD. However, it was probably a bit too aggressively phrased, so I have changed it slightly. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: probably should ping as it's a busy AfD ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 23:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, but I am not satisfied. Now, instead of offending just me and another user, you insulted many users. You should either explain what exactly you see as civil POV-pushing, and support your claims with ironclad evidences, or withdraw your vote completely.
Alternatively, you still may provide evidences (you may use my talk page) of alleged massive coverage. Paul Siebert (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arguments that I accept are as follows: You demonstrate that majority of peer-reviewed sources with a large number of citations support the claim that there is a strong and significant linkage between Communism (as an ideology and a political system) and mass killings, and this factor is a primary reason that allowed them to discuss different mass killings events in a context of each other rather than is a context of other events. You also should demonstrate that majority of well cited peer-reviewed scholarly sources see Great Chinese famine and most other famines as "mass killings" ("genocide, politicide, classicide etc") Paul Siebert (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The arguments against this being an encyclopedic topic are a sad commentary on people restricting what they consider reliable sourcing to only things that match their own viewpoint. NPOV issues are AFDISNOTCLEANUP, GNG is met, IDONTLIKEIT seems to be the strongest delete argument, etc. etc. This is pretty much SKYISBLUE territory, actually, and the number of editors thinking that deleting this is OK suggests we have a serious lack of historical context. Is holocaust denial OK now? Just checking, because the fact that this is being taken seriously suggests it might be. Jclemens (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Per Volunteer Marek. BasedMisesMont Pelerin 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I don't see consistent reasons to delete this page. Facts like these are documented in museums in countries that were under Communist control (eg Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Ukraine, Czech Republic, among others), and this cannot be deleted from people who want to research this subject on Wikipedia. Unfortunately there is a tendency to rewrite history, with several attempts to hide the bad reputation of certain groups that these people are sympathetic to, and that is why situations like this have become more common. If there is any irregularity in the article, let it be corrected and not deleted. Egtj (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Philosophers like Arendt, Orwell, exposed how violence, fear, propaganda, executions are intrinsic characteristics of totalitarian regimes. Historians like Courtois, Paczkowski, Werth, exposed not only the total death toll (in millions) of those regimes, but how the same patterns repeated everytime, everywhere, leading to the conclusion that mass killings are a logical consequence of those regimes. Others like Sternhell established a strong causality through Sorel between the failed marxian prophecy and the birth of violence and political myths as valid ways to gain power and change society. The will to rewrite history, to change terms definitions, to manipulate emotions and truth is not only a strong component of these ideology but one of this core design. And the first step toward the road to serfdom (Hayek) and the control of thoughts and later the killings. As shown here on Wikipedia this will is still very active particularly among far-left academics who keep repeating history.

Men who address revolutionary words to the people are bound to submit themselves to high standards of sincerity, because the workers understand these words in their exact and literal sense and never indulge in any symbolic interpretation. When in 1905 I ventured to write in some detail on proletarian violence I was fully aware of the grave responsibility I assumed in trying to show the historic bearing of acts that our parliamentary socialists try to cover up with so much skill. Today I do not hesitate to declare that socialism could not continue to exist without an apology for violence.

It is through strikes that the proletariat asserts its existence. I cannot be persuaded to see in strikes something analogous to the temporary rupture of commercial relations which is brought about when a grocer and his supplier of prunes cannot agree about the price. The strike is a phenomenon of war; it is therefore a serious misrepresentation to say that violence is an accidental feature destined to disappear from strikes.

The social revolution is an extension of this war in which each great strike is an episode; this is why the syndicalists speak of this revolution in the language of strikes; for them socialism is reduced to the conception, the expectation of and the preparation for the general strike, which, like the Napoleonic battle, is to annihilate completely a condemned regime.[1]

References

  1. ^ Sorel, Georges, "Reflections on violence", Georges Sorel: Reflections on Violence, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–2, retrieved 2021-11-24

lxndr (talk) 23:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lxndr: This all very fascinating, but bears absolutely no relevance to the conversation, which is whether there is enough third-party sourcing to merit this page's existence. I happen to agree we should keep the page, but please only make your points in manners relevant to the actual arguments for keeping or deleting an article from Wikipedia, not the philosophical rationale behind the concept which the article discusses. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fresh argument, thanks. Could you please, clarify, what Orwell said specifically about Communism and "mass killings" (not just crimes)?
A second question: what exactly did Werth said about Communism in general and mass killings. I recall there was a very serious disagreement between him and Courois: can you remind me please why? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. The "Keep" argument is only repeating the banal observation that information in this article is "notable." They have not acknowledged that all of this information is also available in the better context of other, more relevant articles, nor have they made any substantive case as to why "Communist regimes" bear special analysis or must be lumped together like this. As has been pointed out repeatedly, there has been a decade-long failure to improve the quality of the article and focus its content. The very fact that this article has become such a flashpoint for mass canvassing on social media demonstrates the insurmountable problems it is doomed to face with regards to neutrality, accuracy, and quality. I certainly hope in light of this motivated mobilization that whoever makes the decision in the end will not follow a simple vote count, but instead exercise judgment after properly weighing the discussion. — Uiscefada (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uiscefada: Here is some evidence for keep, with academic reference to the specific pattern of mass killings in communist regimes. These academic references are alongside the numerous non-academic sources that still merit reference: Benjamin Valentino, Cornell, Vladimir Tismaneau, Central European University, Frank Wayman and Atsushi Tago, Journal of Peace Research. Considering support for the retention of this article as simply "banal" and mostly the result of canvasing is a selective reading of those who have voiced reasons for keeping and does not advance the conversation, providing no evidence towards deletion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I already argued on the talk page, the core of Valentino's idea is that regime type does not matter. That is a cornerstone of his theory, although he sees some commonalities between some Communist regimes (whereas others Communist regimes were not murderous, according to him). Actually, that is a summary made by Wayman&Tago, another sources that you cite. WRT Tismaneau, his book is about Stalinism, not Communism in general. However, I am grateful for presenting some rational argument. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, I appreciate your cordiality and reasonable criticism, but want to just ever so slightly push back. These authors variously implicitly and explicitly reference the perspective that there is pattern between communism regimes and mass killings, something echoed by far less academic and heavily POV'd sources. I still think that these imperfect references in academia, when combined with partial less-academic but reliable sources, forms the basis for a genuine article. Again, glad for you legitimate critiques and agree with most of what you say here! ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Thanks. It is a great pleasure to talk to a reasonable person (not because you agreeing with me). I would love to keep this article and devote it to a discussion of to what extent Communism was a causative factor of mass killings and human life losses (some authors believe there is some significant connection), and to what extent that is explained by other factors (many other explanations can be found in a literature). However, the very structure of the article creates an absolutely false impression that the point of view that Communism was a primary cause of those events (although there are some dissenting views), and that most historians agree with that. I spent enormous time in attempts to convince people to fix this article, but now I gave up. That is very sad. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Siebert, on that front, I agree. I almost wish we could simply blank the page, lock it, and rebuild the article from the ground up. I'm currently off grad school for a month and might find time once I wrap up a project with Catholic diocesan pages. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an access to jstor? Paul Siebert (talk) 01:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pbritti: Elimination of Bourgeoisie (Middle and Upper class) as whole, by murdering them, is the road to Soviet man, which then will build Communism. As Marx says, "What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable" Vlisivka (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlisivka: Our own synthesis of mass deaths under communist regimes with quotations like this does not fulfill the requirements necessary for a Wikipedia article. If a reliable source were to say exactly what you said and provide further analysis on the topic, that fulfills the necessary requirements. I happen to sit firmly in the camp of keeping this article, but we mustn't argue that case from irrelevant positions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. This isn't an informational piece of history (the specific articles are), this is enabling a narrative and supports some fringe ideas about history. The individual articles are already good enough and are more respectful toward the actual victims. Either this, or we create the same article for virtually all other forms of government that has ever existed. Probably also... Consider comments leaved from November 24th onward as being somewhat artificials, since the article deletion was covered in several medias and massively publicized among fringe groups on the Internet. Additionnaly not deleting it would probably send a bad message to the fringe groups opposing it, since it would kinda show that wikipedia's treatment of history can be shaped and coerced by outsiders interested by serving their own narratives.Larrayal (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Communists killing 100 millions of people is a "fringe idea about history"? They set a record, not even Hitler could match this, and you call it a "fringe idea about history"? I find no polite words to comment on this. Platyna (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is fringe. If you want, I will demonstrate that (with sources) on my talk page. Meanwhile, go to a local library, take Rummel's "Death by government", and check his sources (his web site does not show sources). You will be surprised with a real trash that he uses as sources Paul Siebert (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Rummel's "Death by government" is trash, why is it cited 1573 times? --Nug (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a notable topic, it's well-written and has enough sources. – PidgeCopetti (talk) 00:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic. Sourcing is somewhat limited, but sufficient. While the sources presented above (such as red holocaust or the black book) may or may not link communist ideology to mass killings, each one certainly discusses the concept of mass killings under a variety of regimes that are distinguished specifically for their communism, which is enough to demonstrate notability for this topic. This alone demonstrates that the SYNTH concerns are not relevant here; the article does not rely on combining sources discussing mass killings under individual communist regimes for its notability but on sources discussing the entire topic. Zoozaz1 (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]
  • Strong Keep It is an important subject of recent world history and the article is well sourced and well written. Letting politically motivated revisionism and partisan agendas run rampant on this site has driven away many users and this will be another nail in the coffin for many people. It is what it is. If Wikipedia is going to sink then that will be because the community has allowed it to happen. Keep this article. Xenomancer (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:Xenomancer and others above. This is an important topic, though I can imagine the article title could be better.--Darwinek (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge with Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. Beyond the individual mass killings being notable, the question is whether the analytical connection (which would be synthesis if not previously published) between mass killings perpetrated in different countries and the fact of those countries having communist regimes. This is clearly not original to this article, and has been mentioned in a number of sources, cf. here for an overview and here for a more quantitative study. A number of independent sources do seem to establish that there is a connection between mass killings and communist regimes. This article on mass killings must necessarily discuss the mass killings, and as those events will likely already have articles, there will undoubtedly be some duplication of content: but this is not a reason to delete, but a complaint about article scope. More sources and prose connecting mass killings in various communist regimes would help this article, but the article is not doomed to deletion without such additional content. In addition, this present discussion is premature, and improperly preëmpted a discussion on the article's Talk: page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! that is a really impressive source. Since 2000, it has cited 5 times, and no citation in a context of Communist mass killings. Incidentally, this author is a co-founder of that journal, which casts a doubts on whether that article passed a peer-reviewing procedure. In addition, I have difficulties with finding impact factor of this journal: I get either this or that, and it seems these are different journals.
    In connection to that, I am wondering how have you managed to find this obscure source? I am ruling out a possibility of cherry-picking, but I see no other ways to find such an article. Paul Siebert (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    With regard to the link to the Rummel's web site, can you please tell me what sources he used for USSR? I am asking, because I know his sources (in contrast to other users, I bothered to take a paper copy from our library) Paul Siebert (talk) 01:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Paul Siebert: I did not choose the article because it was the best article I knew of, nor because it was the only article I could find; I chose it because it was the first result of a copy-and-paste search for "Mass killings" "Communist regimes" (or somesuch) in a search engine. The fact that it exists, and mentions the connection, was the point of citation. You "know his sources", do you? Then you should add them to the article, instead of arguing for deletion. Searching for those two phrases in quotes as such gives 1090 scholarly sources; no doubt there are false positives, but that dispels claims of pure sythensis. The connection between communist regimes and crimes against humanity is more directly established; the two articles could be adequately merged. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Can you please drop a link to the search? It seems this author publishes papers almost exclusively in the journal he is a co-founder of, and majority of references are from the same journal. According to normal standards, that is a bad sign.
      In my !vote post, I tried this, and the first article was the article about mass killing OF Communists in Indonesia.
      I also tried this (the first article is Wayman&Tago (we already discussed this source: the authors say that Valentino's theory openly disagrees with Rummel (according to him, regime type doesn't matter, and that is hos major finding), although Valentino recognises, to some degree, effect of ideology.
      I tried this and that, and I didn't find Grunenwald, see also this. Only by searching specifically for this author I was able to find this source. In connection to that, I am repeating my question: can you please drop me a link to your search? Paul Siebert (talk) 02:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Paul, I found this source titled "The Cold War Struggle (2): Communist Atrocities", I don’t have access to this particular book but the abstract is as follows:
      Communist regimes massacred millions of civilians during the Cold War. Governments in the Soviet Union, China and Cambodia initiated programs of radical social transformation and killed, tortured or allowed to starve whole groups thought hostile to change or simply unworthy of life. But it is not simply the number of victims that distinguishes communist from non-communist atrocities in the Cold War. Guided by ideologies of selective extermination, communist perpetrators rarely even acknowledged the moral questions raised by their policies of sometimes systematic extermination. Ideological solidarity prompted communist governments to support one another, often enabling communist perpetrators of mass killing to secure sufficient legitimacy. This chapter shows that although communist governments gradually moved away from selective extermination they did not internalise civilian immunity. Indeed, both the Soviet Union (in Afghanistan) and China (in the 1989 Beijing massacre) committed atrocities after abandoning selective extermination.
      Do you have access? —Nug (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I recall you already mentioned that source. In seems I have no online access to this source, I need to check if my university has a paper copy. If it doesn't, that may be an indication of insufficient notability. Anyway, we should use this source somewhere in Wkipedia. I'll let you know if I found it. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Paul Siebert: I didn't because I didn't remember, but even so, this search returns it as the fourth or so result. I was going to leave a comment regarding your lack of good faith, but I chose not to; I see that that choice was mistaken. The first few results from this search are also valuable. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        You don't need quotation marks for a single word.
        WRT your first source, the fact that some Communist governments committed some genocides is indisputable. I recall, the first accusation of genocide was made by Soviet supported Vietnamese, who accused Khmer Rouge of genocide. I cannot understand, however, how and why all of that can serve as an argument in support of keeping this article, for more than 90% of death this article ascribed to Communists are not seen as genocides by an overwhelming majority of sources.
        Interestingly, the second article in your list has a title "Genocide in the Former Yugoslavia before and after Communism". Isn't that interesting?
        WRT your second search results, the keyword "democide" is strongly linked to Rummel's concept, so you inevitably obtain a subset of sources that are linked to his theory. That is not an indication of mainstreamness. In addition, Democide already has its own article, what is a reason to have another one? Our policy does not allow that. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Paul Siebert: For some searches, quotation marks remove spurious alternates (although that may not be the case for Google Scholar). Not all mass killings are genocides; the concepts are distinct, thus the article's mention of non-"genocide" mass killings (such as famines). No, it's not interesting, because there are also genocides under capitalist governments. I looked for "democide" because it was being mentioned frequently in this discussion; I noticed also that there were many Rummel articles there. The fact that there are a number of articles dealing with genocides in individual communist countries does not mean that there are no articles (or too few to matter) on the connection between communism and mass killings. See also this and Valentino's works (1, 2). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @TE(æ)A,ea.: First, please, familiarise yourself with my posts on this pare where I already addressed most of that. Valentino's theory says (and it is a cornerstone of it) that there is no strong linkage between the regime type and mass killing. He grouped some mass killings committed by some communist regimes, but he never implied any substantial linkage between Communism and mass killings. This your argument is not valid.
          The problem is that most Wikipedia articles dealing with those topics describes them in totally different terms than this article is doing, and, importantly, put them in a totally different context. That makes this article not a summary style (which is allowed per our policy, but a POV-fork, which is prohibited.
          I am expecting you to address this my argument. If you can't, please, think if you really sure you should support keeping this article. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Paul Siebert: How is this a "fork"? What is this a fork of? That page specifically mentions an original article which is forked to support a specific non-neutral point of view. You have made dozens of posts on this already very lengthy page; it is unreasonable for me to read over the entire discussion. This article is a combination of summary style (listing mass killings under communist regimes) and original article (discussing the connection between mass killings and communist regimes). If the original articles deal with the subjects differently, then the presentation on this article should be changed; the article should not be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            @TE(æ)A,ea: The Wikipedia's analog of Pauli principle says that two or more articles cannot tell about the same subject. An exception is a summary style when one article tells about some subject, whereas another article provides a brief summary. "Summary" means that the overall context, terminology and facts should be the same in both articles. That is not the case even for such an obvious case as Cambodian genocide: the "Mass killings ..." article says it was a mass killing committed by Communists because of Marxist ideology, political structure and leadership. The ostensibly "daughter articles" Cambodian genocide provides a detailed historical context and outlines a number of factors, which were specific for Cambodian society that lead to that tragedy. A situation with other articles is even worse: thus, Great Chinese famine does not use words "mass killings" or "democide" at all, and describes a large number of factors that lead to this largest, but not the only famine in Chinese history. If you do similar analysis of other "daughter articles" you will see that almost all of them are written from a totally different perspective than this article. Therefore, this article violates our core policy, and that violation is one (out of three) reasons for deletion. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Paul Siebert: A summary article must necessarily leave out some detail. If you believe that the present article does not adequately describe the "ostensibl[e ]daughter[s]" accurately, perhaps by leaving out important detail, then you should add such material to the article. Deleting an article is not the proper response to this. Even given that the "Mass killings" summaries do not accurately describe the other articles, that does not mean that the "Mass killings" page presents a non-neutral point of view. In addition, you have not presented any evidence that the only sources available for this article will necessarily push a specific point of view; as such, the problem you describe is one that can be corrected without deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              @TE(æ)A,ea: No, you are not right. The title and structure of this article set some template for a description of each individual events, which is intrinsically incompatible with a summary style. It is not fixable. Just look:
              1. The article says scholars are describing Communist mass killings as "genocide" (and other "-cides").
              2. The article says that historians estimates of deaths due to Communism range from X to Y
              3. The article says that all of that happened because of ideology and political structure
              All of that are general claims that describe common features of each event described in separate sections, and it is implied that these claims are equally applicable to each of them.
              Now tell me:
              1. Does the Great Chinese famine article describes this famine as "genocide/democide" or any other term listed in the "Terminplogy" section? No, it doesn't (as well as majority of reliable sources). This contradiction is fundamentally irresolvable.
              2. The Great Chinese famine article does not characterize that famine as "mass killing", but all total figures in the Estimates section includes GCF deaths. It is a contradiction that de facto present a minority POV as a majority view. How can that be resolved?
              3. The Great Chinese famine article provides a long list of causes, and they are totally different from those listed in the "Causes" section. That is also a contradiction.
              These contradictions are impossible to resolve without a complete rewriting and renaming of the article. That is what I proposed 11 years ago, and that faced a severe opposition. To believe that the situation may improve in nest 11 years is naive. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Paul Siebert: The fact that this article formerly had the name "Communist genocides" but does not have that name now indicates a broadening of the subject matter. Thus, not all "mass killings" are "genocides." Your claim that the general claims are universalizing is simply false. The first section ("Terminology and usage") describes the term "mass killings" and other terms which have been used and are used by some scholars to describe the killings listed in the article. Your claim about estimates is disproved by the article's very content. As all of the estimates call the Great Chinese famine a mass killing (for the purpose of estimating the death count of mass killings under communist regimes), there are reliable sources showing that point. (As a general note, I do not see any sources introduced stating that these events, individually or severally, are not mass killings under communist regimes.) There are many causes for many events, and a high-level article, like this one must be, will describe causes in a general manner, in order to facilitate scholarly comparisons. The article gives three "[p]roposed causes": "[i]deology," "[p]olitical system," and "[l]eaders." Nowhere is it stated that all events which are or may be characterized as "mass killings under communist regimes" are necessarily caused by only a combination of the above three factors. I don't believe for a minute your claim that no reliable sources consider the Great Chinese famine a mass killing, or some variant. In addition, more weight should be given to topical scholarly sources, in the field of genocide studies, for instance, which consider the famine in light of other mass killings (under communist regimes or otherwise). Your third so-called contradiction, (which I have not verified,) is, again, a complaint about insufficient content. That is not a proper deletion rationale. Your misinterpretation of sources notwithstanding, only one of your "impossible" contradictions stands, and it would require only a few additional sentences, or perhaps a paragraph, added to one section of this article (insofar as your complaint relates to that section only, it is still relatively minor, and certainly not a "complete rewrit[e]" of the section. I believe the previous rename ("Communist genocides" to "Mass killings under communist regimes") was appropriate and, although the new title is less direct, it accurately describes the subject matter. Whether or not you believe the article will improve in 11 years, or whether anyone believes that any change will happen, is irrelevant to the deletion discussion; and I believe that the article will be improved if the discussion is concluded favorably to the article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                @TE(æ)A,ea: No, your arguments are not satisfactory.
                "Terminology and usage" does describe the term "Mass killing", "Genocide, etc., but all of them, except, probably Classicide, are more broad, whereas others, like "repressions", are much more narrow, and relate only to one country. The term Red Holocaust is not a term at all: it it the title of one book, and, simultaneously, a term that is used for the Holocaust obfuscation. All of that is a complete mess. The explanation of the term Classicide in this article makes not more sense that explanation of the term Plank constant in the Uncertainty principle article, with one exception: "Classicide" is not used in the MKuCR article at all.
                A long list of not-topic-specific terms serves just to one goal: to mimic the style of the The Holocaust article, and to create an absolutely false impression that we are dealing with some single phenomenon that different authors call "genocide", "Democide", "red Holocaust", etc. That is just an example of the Holocaust trivialization and obfuscation.
                "Estimates" Yes, most sources that are cited in this article call famine a mass killing. However, do you know how many sources say otherwise? Look at this and that. If you disagree with my search procedure, propose your own set of key words, and read the sources that it returns. Majority sources speak about the Great Chinese famine in the same terms as about Irish or Bengal famine, and do not call it "mass killing".
                WRT "Nowhere is it stated that all events etc" If these three causes are not the common causes, then what is the reason to have this section? However, if they are collected in one single section, that implies that at they were the causes of majority of the described events. This section implies string commonality, which, as you yourself acknowledge, does not exist.
                If we, hypothetically, decide to save this article, we should do the following:
                • Delete "Terminology" (for the reasons I already explained);
                • Delete "Estimates" (because different authors include different categories of deaths, and there is a strong disagreement between those who write about Communism in general and the experts in history of one concrete state; a conflict between the two main contributors to BB, Werth&Margolin, and Courtois is a typical example)
                • Delete "Common causes" (because, as you yourself say they were not major causes)
                • Write the section about each country using the following format:
                • Historical background
                • Mass killing/excess mortality events (depending on how majority of country-specific sources describe them);]
                • Estimates (by categories)
                • Causes
                That would be a perfectly neutral article. The problem is, however, that all of that already can be found in Wikipedia. How many SS articles about the same topic do we need to have? Paul Siebert (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Paul Siebert: Your claims regarding "Holocaust obfuscation" are irrelevant, wrongly placed, and reek of a distaste for the article's content. This article is not about the Holocaust, so no discussion needs be had of that article. "Red Holocaust" is a term, and mention of its use as a term is given in that section. I don't understand what you are saying in relation to the definition of the term "classicide." The terms are related to the topic; I do not know how you can conclude otherwise. To follow your example, the Holocaust is a genocide, but of course there are other genocides; the inclusion of that term on the Holocaust article would not be distracting to the purpose. For this article, which is about numerous mass killings, there must necessarily be a discussion of the various terms used to describe mass killings; thus the definitions. The reason for the dearth of mentions of "mass killings" is the phrase "mass killings." That phrase was chosen as a compromise, as one term to represent all of the article's subjects. As the list of terms with which the article begins shows, there are a number of terms used by various genocide specialists when referring to mass killings. In addition, a preliminary search finds that "mass killings," though a general term, is not commonly used; but I do not by extension suggest that the article should be moved to a different title. In a study of famines, the Great Chinese famine is a famine; in a study of mass killings, the Great Chinese famine is a mass killing. It is both a famine and a mass killing; and scholars may refer to it as appropriate within their own writings. The three causes listed are the main causes, but are not exclusively and totally all of the causes of all mass killings under communist regimes. There is a strong connection between the three "[c]ommon causes" listed and mass killings, but the connection is not absolute; that is, some mass killings have other causes, and not all mass killings have all three listed causes as causes necessarily. The section is illustrative. I do not wish to impose too much upon you, but I would like you to elucidate your opposition to the "Terminology and usage" section. Your objections to the "Estimates" section is the very reason I think it should be kept. Where this a scholarly disagreement about the extent of some event, (as, in this case, mass killings under communist regimes,) it behooves Wikipedia to show all estimates from relevant scholars, and thus present the sum of scholarly opinion. If these estimates include different events, that should be listed; although such differential listings may have a more appropriate place elsewhere in the article. I did not mean to mislead you, but I do believe the "Common causes" are the major causes of mass killings under communist regimes in general. I believe that a listing of all causes would be inappropriate, and more accurately placed in the summaries of individual events. As for your section-template proposal, I believe it is unnecessarily self-centered and lengthy. I do not have a good counter-proposal at the moment, but I believe that level of information would be excessive. The reason I believe that such information would be excessive is that the information in this article should be more focused on "under communist regimes" rather than "mass killings." That is, more effort should be spent on showing the connection between mass killings and communist regimes and general estimates rather than on the circumstances of individual mass killings. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  @TE(æ)A,ea: This article tries to mimic The Holocaust article, so this comparison is relevant.
                  If "Red Holocaust" is the term (similar to "Democide" of "Mass killing"), please, provide its definition, with quotes and references.
                  Even if the terms are related to the topic, they can be defined in this article only in one case: if they were proposed specifically for that topic and widely used in this concrete article. We cannot devote a separate section that explains the terms Plank constant, Coordinate, Momentum and Uncertainty in the Uncertainty principle article, despite the fact that all of them are used in the latter (the same cannot be said about e.g. "Classicide" or "Politicide" in MKuCR). Using a "find" tool, try to find how many times "classicide" is used in the article. It is used twice: in the lede and it the "Terminology" section. That is a clear attempt to make the article look like a serious textbook telling about some mainstream topic (which is by no means the case).
                  WRT "That phrase was chosen as a compromise, as one term to represent all of the article's subjects." No. That claim cannot be made by a person who is familiar with the body of sources about China or Soviet Russia. That claim is just wrong. I provided a google.scholar search results, which demonstrate that I am right and you are wrong. You provided no arguments in response, just an unsubstantiated claim. You write " In a study of famines, the Great Chinese famine is a famine; in a study of mass killings, the Great Chinese famine is a mass killing", but which sources represent a majority? It is quite easy to demonstrate that the first type sources are more numerous and more respected. I already did that elsewhere, and I can provide these evidences upon a request. You literally propose to write the article from a perspective of just one group of sources, which is an open violation of our policy.
                  WRT estimates, the problem is that the very idea to come up with some common estimates is seen as deeply politically motivated and non-scholarly by many authors. The question is not only in the amount of people who really died, and even not in what category of death should be included, but in the very idea to combine all death together and link to Communism. That is exactly what Nicolas Werth and other reputable scholars objected to. That is not my objection, that what reliable sources say.
                  WRT. " I do believe the "Common causes" are the major causes of mass killings under communist regimes in general. " Ok. Benjamin Valentino, one of the core authors who gave the name to this article, concluded, and that is the core concept of his theory, that ideology is NOT an important factor. You may look at this AfD's talmk page, where I presented some representative and unbiased sample of sources, and some of them also say that linking mass killings to Marxism is deeply incorrect. You may believe in whatever you want, but you cannot write Wikipedia based on your beliefs.
                  WRT. " I believe it is unnecessarily self-centered and lengthy" We may either have a reasonably well, although lengthy SS, or a short POV-fork. The former is not good, the latter directly violates our policy, and its an immediate reason for deletion. I and @North8000: have another solution, but I am sure it will not satisfy the "keep" camp. Paul Siebert (talk) 02:19, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Paul Siebert: You have not provided any comments on this article's similarity to the article on the Holocaust, and I believe such a comparison is unwarranted. The term "red Holocaust" is defined under the heading for "Holocaust" (in this article). Your characterization of the definitions of terms at the beginning of this article, in my view, misses the point. In relation to the uncertainty principle, knowledge of the knowledge of certain theoretical physics terms is necessary to understand the article; however, it is not necessary to know about the terms in an abstract, analytical sense. In the present article, it is necessary for the terms to be defined in the way they are to be able to understand the analytical, scholarly framework regarding the study of mass killings in general and those under communist regimes in particular. Your concern about the lack of use of the term "classicide" (or any other term, for that manner), is a misplaced request for improving the article, which is not a valid reason for deletion. You have misunderstood my comment about compromise. I mean that the term "mass killings" was chosen by Wikipedia as a compromise term for this article; in fact, I highlighted in my previous response that the term was not widely used in scholarly discourse. I do not believe writing this article with the Great Chinese famine contextualized as a mass killing is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy. I am not concerned, and the writers of this article should not be concerned, with famine scholars discussing the Great Chinese famine in the scholarly framework of famines. As this article deals with mass killings, it will as a matter of course concern itself with scholars discussing the Great Chinese famine as a mass killing, and not concern itself with scholars discussing the Great Chinese famine as a famine; that point was the intent of my previous statement. The claims of a political motivation for death estimates is a fact, which may be added to the article with a reliable source (or likely several). However, that does not justify removing the content. I do not doubt that some have claimed that the claims of political motivation in formulating estimates were themselves politically motivated, although from a different ideological viewpoint. Certainly, the death-estimates section has the potential for political manipulation; but that should motivate careful writing and consideration of sources, not deletion of the section outright. In your response to the comment I made in part of my previous response regarding this article's discussion of "Common causes," you incorrectly characterize my arguments. I was not discussing whether communism was the cause of the mass killings in question, but whether the governmental practices discussed in the "Common causes" section were responsible for the mass killings described further in the article, and to what extent they were responsible. The "self-centered and lengthy" comment was made regarding your proposal for country-by-country section division layout, not the article as a whole; the article as it stands is not unnecessarily lengthy, in my opinion. I would like you (and members of the deletion discussion in general) to consider a more reasonable (in length) way to summarize the ostensible daughter articles. If you claim that the summaries are inaccurate, and written to support a specific point of view, then there should definitely be work done to rewrite them; however, I believe that your proposed rewrite method is too lengthy, and would unnecessarily increase the length of the present article. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    @TE(æ)A,ea:
                    • A simple comparison of structures of both articles show that MKuCR is trying to mirror The Holocaust. They both start with "Terminology" sections, followed by "Causes" and then by a descriptions of individual events. The only difference is in positions of the "Death toll" sections. Whereas wording is slightly different, structurally MKuCR mimics "The Holocaust, and its structure implies some significant similarities between these two topics. And that is not a surprise, because MKuCR is based on Courtois's Black Book, and many reliable sources openly say Courtois conveys the idea that Communism (as a whole) was worse than Nazism, the viewpoint that is not shared by majority of scholars. On the AdF's talk page, some sources are presented that support this my claim.
                    • WRT, "In the present article, it is necessary for the terms to be defined in the way they are to be able to understand the analytical, scholarly framework regarding the study... etc" Absolutely wrong. First, allmost all those terms (and "terms") are not used in this article, and a reader does not need to know them. Second, these terms set virtually no analytical network in a context of Communism. I can say, for example, what "analytical network" is set by "democide": it was needed to collect a global database of deaths inflicted by all governments, followed by its statistical analysis. yes, that revealed some correlations. Are that correlations discussed in MKuCR? Do they have any relation to Communism specifically. Both answers are NO. The same can be said about "mass killings". Valentino proposed the term to find the factors that affect mass killings onset. And he found ... that ideology or regime type are poor predictors. Is all of that discussed in the article. No, then, why all of that is needed? The format of this discussion does not allow me to continue, but I can do that elsewhere.
                    • WRT "Red Holocaust", the article contains NO definition, but it says the "term" has a bad smell. Literally. You failed to respond to that argument.
                    • I did not misunderstood your words about a compromise. Yes, "mass killings" are far better than "Communist genocide" (which is a total garbage), but it still leaves beyond the scope the opinion of 95% authors who write about USSR and China. I spent tens of hours in attempts to figure out majority views on that subject, and I am ready to present evidences elsewhere.
                    • "As this article deals with mass killings, it will as a matter of course concern itself with scholars discussing the Great Chinese famine as a mass killing, and not concern itself with scholars discussing the Great Chinese famine as a famine; that point was the intent of my previous statement." You literally recognize that the article express just one POV That is exactly what I say: the article is a POV-fork, and, therefore, should be deleted.
                    (Please, do not respond for a while, I haven't finished. Will continue in 12 hr) Paul Siebert (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the topic is intrinsically notable, and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Whether or not related articles should be merged is another question (a WP:MERGEPROP question), not relevant to AFD. Softlavender (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per overwhelming sourcing, i.e. The Black Book of Communism. And less heat please, all of you. I had a hard time even responding as my browser could not handle the page. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, while the article needs work, AfD is not the right answer. For those who don't like the title, I wouldn't mind moving it back to Communist Genocide TMLutas (talk) 02:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - fix it - there is alot more to add - and that certainly is not a reason for deletion. What's needed most is access to historic documentation and really good libraries - they do exist. I haven't checked all the sources used in the article, and this AfD is beyond tl;dr but here's a source by historian Norman Naimark in 2010, (if it hasn't been cited already). Naimark says the definition of genocide "should include nations killing social classes and political groups." He also said, "Mass killing is still the way a lot of governments do business." Don't limit your search terms to murder under communist regimes. Look at this BBC article. If you have a little extra time, read this op-ed in The Harvard Crimson - here's an excerpt: "Statistics show that young Americans are indeed oblivious to communism’s harrowing past. According to a YouGov poll, only half of millennials believe that communism was a problem, and about a third believe that President George W. Bush killed more people than Soviet leader Joseph Stalin, who killed 20 million. If you ask millennials how many people communism killed, 75 percent will undershoot." Atsme 💬 📧 04:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, raised good points on NPOV and forking, generally agree. BlookyNapsta (talk) 03:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this meets notability criteria, though it could possibly be merged with crimes against humanity under communism. Even though the article seems a little messy, this does not warrant deletion. Ajaverett0 (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this article meets notability criteria; deleting it because it may imply that Communism is a violent ideology reeks of censorship to me. Yohan Anthony Sunanda (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This absolutely reeks of censorship. Deletion for biased reasons is worse than the article existing for “biased” reasons. Apart from that, the article is written fine. Some neutrality needs to be worked on, but have any of you taken a look at anything written about the right-wing in the past 5 years on Wikipedia? Regardless, none of the points raised begin to even merit discussion of deletion, nevermind deletion itself. We should also bear in mind that this nomination is very clearly ideologically motivated.MWFwiki (talk) 07:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I genuinely do not understand the nomination by User:Cygnis insignis, with statements such as "Some notes, more as I remember, but will argue they support deletion: the article has existed in one form or another for many years; a series of previous AfDs have been proposed [10+ years ago]; that article traffic is significant; there is currently another open dispute resolution underway; personally have every reason to despise Communist regimes [as I define them]." I do understand that one of the primary arguments by the opponents of this article is that it is a synthesis, but that appears to be a misapplication of WP:SYNTH. The idea that there is a connection between the fact that certain regimes were Communist and the fact that those regimes engaged in mass killings is not something that a few Wikipedia editors made up, but was the subject of scholarly study even before Wikipedia existed. Nor does the title of this article imply that all communist regimes had mass killings, any more than Feminist activism in hip hop implies that all hip hop artists are feminist activists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The idea that there is a connection between the fact that certain regimes were Communist and the fact that those regimes engaged in mass killings is not something that a few Wikipedia editors made up. Actually, it is. That's exactly it. Otherwise, show us a book by an academic publisher that provides significant coverage a connection between "mass killings" (not "famine", etc.) and "communist regimes" (all communist regimes as opposed to one or two or three of them). Show us a GNG source for this topic. It should be very easy to do this if this topic is actually as notable as you assert it to be. Levivich 13:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metropolitan90:, I agree that the nomination is poorly written. Please, read my post where I voted "delete". I provided the analysis of the arguments of supporters of the article, and demonstrate their weaknesses. I believe that will help you to better understand why this article should be deleted. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Article should be rewritten and claims verified. The topic is notable. The article should not be deleted. Sideriver84 (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Figured I'd throw my hat in the ring to show that there are legitimate users supporting keep and not just people who were canvassed. The topic's notability has barely been challenged, most of the complaints stem from issues with the article's quality. Reading through the article, I'm not seeing the alleged quality problems, so I don't see any reason to delete this article. As an aside, I just want people to realize that saying "strong keep/delete" is literally meaningless and doesn't give your comment any more weight than any other comments. Mlb96 (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The topic's notability has barely been challenged What??? Did you read this AfD? Of course the topics notability is the whole thing being challenged. Can you point to one source that provides significant coverage of "mass killings" and "communist regimes"? Please provide page numbers if you post a source. So far no one has. Like all other keep voters you are asserting notability but not identifying GNG sources of this actual topic (using the words "mass killing" and "communist regime" as opposed to "famine" and "China" etc.). Levivich 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read about 75% of the AfD before giving up because this page is slightly larger than the planet Jupiter. But from what I did read, the argument has been largely dominated by NPOV/SYNTH concerns; you're one of the only ones who has genuinely tried challenging notability. And in my opinion, your argument has been successfully rebutted by Mikehawk10 and Nug. Mlb96 (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mlb96: actually, no. It depends on what we see under "notability". As I already explained, the notability of the article may be (i) notability of the events, and (ii) notability of the idea to link all those events together and to Communism. Clearly, if we speak about (i), then the article add ZERO notable information to Wikipedia, for all what it says represents just brief and one-sided excerpts from other articles, which are much better written and more encyclopaedic. Therefore, we can speak only about a second type notability. The story about a linkage of all atrocities and mass deaths to Comminism is actually found in The Black Book of Communism (already has its own article) and Democide (has its own article too). Other sources, such as Final Solutions or Red Holocaust are not good, because the former does not make a strong linkage with Communism, and the latter is written about USSR, China and Cambodia. These two + two sources, each of which have theri own Wikipedia articles + numerous mass-media articles and videos - is is sufficient to speak about notability? Paul Siebert (talk) 02:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: WP:SYNTH. This article is full of original research and is unrecoverable. The article and these votes are also massively affected by canvassing from single purpose accounts wanting to push NPOV. Macktheknifeau (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG. Clearly it is a subject discussed within the academic literature, and for that reason alone merits inclusion in WP. Also Wikipedia rejects censorship and is unafraid of controversies. I would note that Anti-communist mass killings was only mildly less controversial than this article and kept for the reasons listed above.Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 10:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Nobody in the Delete camp challenges the relevance of the article, on the opposite ; this article will inevitably serve as a hub for all communist made disasters. This is part of the problem. Firstly, it has a redundance aspect with several well documented articles, such as "Crimes against humanity under communist regimes" (which itself holds a legal basis in his title that this article is devoid off) and the individual articles of those exactions, which should be taken by themselves. Second, this is enabling a narrative (in this case, a right wing narrative) over death of millions of people. Wikipedia's users will come to the site for research over communist crimes, see this page, which is based upon fringe theories without any support in reality about a victim toll that is grossly exagerated. Are we letting the first page users will read about Covid 19 be entirely based upon writings by vaccine deniers, tinfoil conspiracy theorists and osteopaths ? And the evidence prove that removing those sources will make the article virtually unsourced enough to be considered for keeping. Third, this is litteraly an article whose entire basis is a gross cock contest over not who but whose ideology has killed the more people. The global communist death toll is one of the most egregious political deformations used in today political debates to legitimize several political group, and the information about it must be kept the most reliable possible, and this article is plagued with sources bias and gross overestimations. Also, enabling ideologies body count might be a common thing among political representatives, "political compass" communities and 4chan alt-Right trolls, but in reality only individuals crimes are taken into consideration, and it is the task of politicians to do the synthesis to serve or not their narrative, absolutely not the task of Wikipedia. Larrayal (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please point out the "fringe theories" in Mass killings under communist regimes that the article is allegedly "based upon"? There is a mention of double genocide theory... but oh wait, it has been added there, and fiercely defended, by the same two editors who are now running around this AfD discussion and badgering people who vote to keep it. Can you also point out the "right wing narratives" allegedly present in the article? Cloud200 (talk) 14:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cloud200: I have to agree that "fringe" is an exaggeration. Thus, the Black Book is very notable. However a significant part of its notability is a storm of support AND critics it caused. The article carefully attenuates this fact and present these views as a non-controversial mainstream views. In general, this article combines several non-fringe (but not a majority) books and creates an absolutely fringe narrative. Not only it is fringe: it is redundant. Please, give me an example of a piece of information that will be lost if this article will be deleted. Almost everything what this article says can be found in other articles.
As I already explained, per our policy that is not allowed. One exception that is applicable to this case is summary style. To save this article, you must provide serious evidences that this article is meets summary style criteria. One important criterion of "summary style" article is: each section is a summary of some daughter article. As I already demonstrated, that criterion was not met. Therefore, this article is not a summary style, and it must be deleted.
I may be wrong, and I am still waiting for reasonable counter-arguments. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per SYNTH and NPOV, as others have explained. NightHeron (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree that this article must be deleted and merged with others, less controversial and better sources articles. Smitterdin (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a bad faith nomination and really should be speedily closed. But we're past that already, so I'll just note that the rational in the nomination isn't convincing. This article has good references, and more are easily available if needed. It's also written as neutral as can be, considering the subject matter. If anything should be done here it should just be a name change to "List of", but reading the article it's clear that it's an actual article rather than a list. Ohms law (talk) 12:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke or is it WP:SNOWING in November?. Even the most ardent tankies would not deny this being a common trend under nations named Communist. This is a notable topic to have an encyclopedic article about. It is literally the main topic of so much of academic literature alone, this included. IF WP:SYNTH is the issue, AFD is not a clean-up space and the solution is to fixed the damn thing. The only reason I knew of this nomination was because the idiots at BitChute, on Twitter, were accusing Wikipedia of progressing a commie agenda by deleting this page. It has been annoying enough for my editing window to lag just to write this comment. 👨x🐱 (Nina CortexxCoco Bandicoot) 13:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: The article is perfectly verifiable. Anyone who want to delete this page is either willfully ignorant of Communist atrocities or actively pushing the agenda that resulted in the deaths of millions. Lack of Plethora (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: If there is an NPOV issue with this article (I dont see it personally, it looks fine to me), the solution is to improve it yourself instead of nuking what could be (and what in my opinion is) a perfectly acceptable article. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP states that requests for deletion are not to be used for articles that have issues solely because they have issues. RedAlert 007 (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, naturally. A nonsense compilation-article connecting various unrelated regimes together with a non-existent SYNTH throughline. The whole idea is rotten from the start and no rewrite is going to make up for the fact that the base assumption here, inherent in the existence of the article under this title and this premise, is flawed. There exist articles for mass killings under various regimes - the correct way of linking them together, if one editor really so desires, is a category, which already exists, not an article. Almost none of the contents of the page actually justifies the existence of this article separate from the existence of articles dedicated to specific massacres, demicides etc. If we removed all the content that isn't relevant to ALL communists regimes simultaneously (or otherwise all regimes considered communist), that is instead only relevant to the Soviet Union, PRC, Kampuchea etc. and therefore its inclusion is inherently OR via SYNTH by way of implication, we would be left with quite literally nothing. It's a compilation, it's based on SYNTH, it should exist only as a category page with links to each of the articles that actually deserve to exist. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 15:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether an article should be deleted or not is not based on personal opinion but on its noteworthiness. The point of argument isn't whether it's fair or accurate to classify these events in this way, its whether they have been categorised and discussed together in sufficiently notable sources. The critiques of classifying thee events together in this way and accusations of political bias which motivates commentators to do so should be included in the article and given due weight. Having said that, it's clear that the concept of 'mass killings under communism' is a much discussed and notable topic (and so therefore not WP:SYNTH), regardless of whether it is fair or agreed with by modern historians. The articles needs improvement though, of course. Vanteloop (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep : I have little reason to hold that this article violates the NPOV guidelines of wikipedia. Though I think there is a need for additional citations of sources and the cleaning up of inaccurate or poorly written sections, deleting an entire article on mass killings committed under communist regimes seems to be a politically charged move in itself. This article does not serve as a condemnation of the ideas of communism itself. It lists democides (state killings) and atrocities commmited by regimes that followed, or at least claimed to follow, the ideals of communism, without making any distinction between the different Marxist political theories, which is exactly what an article on Wikipedia of this nature should do to maintain an NPOV and not fall into the "no True Scotsman" fallacy or strawman individual communist regimes. Deleting this article would merely be hiding historical truths from readers in hopes of trying to paint a more "neutral" point of view on communism somehow. We would not delete an article on atrocities committed by the Congo Free State, a list of violent labor massacres, or the Holocaust, so why delete this one? Dsobol0513 (talk) 15:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those are criteria for deletion and WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a topic is SYNTH, then yes that's a reason to delete. Similarly if a topic is a POV fork, as this one is, then it's NPOV and also a reason to delete. Levivich 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We have tried and/or discussed 'cleanup' for over a decade by now. In my view, a rewrite and restructure like this (the real notable topic) would fix it and save it from deletion. Davide King (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I voted for keep but strongly agree with this proposed restructure. I believe the concept passes notability, but the article should be written as a critical analysis of the subject. Is it right to lump these acts together? Who are the main voices arguing for each side and what is the criticism of them? What is the academic consensus etc etc. Vanteloop (talk) 18:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If an article on a notable topic severely fails the verifiability or neutral point of view policies, it may be reduced to a stub, or completely deleted Paul Siebert (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are clutching at straws. The key qualifier here is "severe", and that certainly isn't the case here. For example:
There just isn't any egregious "unfixable POVFORK" issue here, adding phrase about other government causes and a sentence about natural disaster would fix it. --Nug (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this AfD was inadvertently not logged on the 22nd but has now been apparently logged today. Discussion on the talk page. Levivich 17:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. The argument of WP:GNG in my opinion is not correct. A lot of the arguments on this factor is discussing about how there are no clear linkage between "communist regime" and "mass killings" and thus not satisfying WP:GNG. Some even argued that some of the people mentioned in this articles are "people calling themselves communist" instead of real communist. The object of the article is not finding linkage between communist regime and mass killings, but showing "mass killings" that happen under "communist regime", Just like Anti-communist mass killings, that article also never discuss on the relationship between the two, but just noting the killings of anti-communist. Thus, the article is notable.
If the issue is on the title, we do have an article of Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, and if the issue is only about "no relation" between "communist regime" and "mass killings" this should be merged instead of deleted outright. Some editors also expressed that most of the killings already got their own article, I don't think that reasoning is correct as Anti-communist mass killings stand as their own article too. If editors have problems with some of the people here (maybe they think that Stalin is not communist and just pretending to be one and should be not on the list) it should be addressed individually, not by deleting the whole article.
The second issue that is more relevant is regarding WP:SYNTH. While The Black Book of Communism may be controversial, I don't think the critics towards the book should be "elevated" above all else, and book is discounted as nothingness just because the book is "controversial". We may argue about the neutrality or the facts that are taken from the book, but the argument that the whole article is just some WP:SYNTH or WP:OR is not correct.
Most of the argument rests on the different reading of Valentino. The Delete argument relies on Valentino that "some Communist regime are not doing mass killings" while the Keep argument relies on Valentino's six types of mass killings, which one clearly stated "Communist". From my point of view, it is clear that Valentino considers Communism as one of the type of mass killings, while also agreeing that not all communist country did it. The fact that some Communist country are not doing it does not change the fact that Valentino considers that "Communism" is one of the types in mass killings. Further proof such as from Harff, that shows that only a quarter of communist regimes engaged in mass killings, doesn't change the fact that some did.
Finally, as I outlined above, if the issue of "mass killing" is the problem, merging it with Crimes against humanity under communist regimes is the best course. SunDawntalk 18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawn: In my opinion, Anti-communist mass killings is another article that should be carefully analyzed. After this article will be deleted, I'll take a look at that article, and, probably, start an AfD. We cannot write articles about loosely connected events if majority or RS do not show a significant connection.
You say " The object of the article is not finding linkage between communist regime and mass killings, but showing "mass killings" that happen under "communist regime"", and this your argument contains a logical fallacy. You cannot have an article "Mass murders committed by black people" despite the fact that black people committed numerous mass murders, for example, in South Africa (Zulu) or Haiti. You cannot do that for a very simple reason: majority of RS do not see any significant linkage between those events, and discuss them it their own historical context, separately from each other.
In other words, you argument that the article just tells a story of mass killings without showing or implying any linkage is not completely sincere, because by combining those events together in one article we already imply some significant linkage.
Furthermore, your statement is factually incorrect. The article claims:
1. That scholars are trying to estimate a global "Communist death toll" (which means they do see a linkage)
2. That scholars are trying to develop some common terminology (which implies a strong linkage)
3. That scholars propose common causes (which does imply a strong linkage)
4. That scholars are debating if famine under Communist were mass killings (which implies a strong commonality between them)
Now imagine that we removed all those sections, which falsely imply that those topics are a subject of a mainstream discourse. Indeed, that will make the article more neutral, and it will become closer to a "summary style" article (which is allowed per our policy). However, summary style requires that each section is a brief summary of a daughter article. Are the sections about Cambodian genocide or Great Chinese famine good summaries of Cambodian genocide or Great Chinese famine articles? Of course, no (the Great Chinese famine even does not call this event "mass killing" or "-cide"). That means even after deleting the most controversial sections this article will still violate our policy.
In summary, if the article implies some strong linkage between the events described in that article, it must be deleted as POV-fork/SYNTH. If this article does not imply such a linkage, there is no reason for this article to exist. You say that it does not imply a linkage, and that is an argument for the article's deletion, not keeping.
From your post, I conclude that you are very intellectual and honest person. I expect that you either address (and refute) my arguments or reconsider your vote. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article doesn't claim scholars are trying to estimate a global "Communist death toll", trying to develop some common terminology or propose common causes. You keep going on about how "the Great Chinese famine even does not call this event "mass killing" or "-cide""", that's easily fixed by adding attributed text to the Great Chinese famine article mentioning that it is considered a mass killing. --Nug (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it does not say that, how do you explain the fact that two separate sections are devoted to those issues? If "global Communist death toll" and common terminology are not a subject of a mainstream discourse, these two sections must be deleted. I proposed that several times, but I faced a severe opposition.
I find this your argument insincere.
With regard to the Great Chinese famine, you are welcome to do that. However, before doing that, please, make sure that a significant majority of historians and famine experts support that view. (Actually, I already checked that: they don't) Paul Siebert (talk) 19:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do I detect a hint of WP:PA in your reply? The terminology section simply summaries the various alternative terms used by scholars to describe the fatalities that have occurred under communist regimes, your "develop some common terminology" is just a complete strawman, as are the the other arguments. --Nug (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How widely this terminology is being used in this article and by a scholarly community in general? And is this terminology being developed for Communist mass killings specifically? I saw no evidence for that. In contrast, "Red Holocaust" is just a name of a book, and, simultaneously, a term used for the Holocaust obfuscation. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt we will be right back here in a new deletion discussion if it was merged with Crimes against humanity under communist regimes (which was originally a WP:POINTy creation by a banned sock puppet FWIW), with the same deletion !voters arguing over "crimes against humanity" instead of "mass killings". --Nug (talk) 18:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what information are you going to add to it. So far, that article looks much less controversial. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That article replicates most of the same content, so how can you say "that article looks much less controversial" while at the same time claim this article is. --Nug (talk) 19:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that we should keep the article and then suggesting a merge makes no sense. Those two options are irreconciliable. Mlb96 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

[edit]
That cherry picked source analysis is not WP:RS or WP:NPOV. --Nug (talk) 20:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug:, do you realize that those sources were taken from Mass killings under Communist regimes article? Do you seriously imply the sources for that article were cherry-picked? I cannot believe it. Paul Siebert (talk) 20:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying the analysis is cherry picked. You dispute with dozens of other editors their interpretation of the sources, but this one editor has so accurately interpreted these same sources, that we must all be insincere, right?. --Nug (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
VR, this is my second posting to this discussion. The first was a "Keep" vote at 02:19, 23 November 2021, which was not one of the "I think most "keep" votes don't realize that an article on a slightly difference topic already exists."
I noted that, "In comparison with the much-shorter related article, Crimes against humanity under communist regimes, which has 33 inline cites and a 9-entry bibliography, this article boasts 302 inline cites based on a bibliography of at least 280 individual titles, most of which are books, plus 25 additional titles under "Further reading"."
Regarding your vote, although I feel that the two articles approach the same subject from separate perspectives, how should we merge an article which, as of this writing, has 309,282 bytes (it had 313,629 bytes at the time of my vote), not to mention a talk page of 137,121 bytes, four extremely lengthy deletion discussions and even its own 49,643-byte workpage (Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes/sandbox) into the 19,971-byte Crimes against humanity under communist regimes?
If we simply took the easy step of renaming this page Crimes against humanity under communist regimes and then just added non-duplicative portions of the text as well as "See also", "References" ("Notes" and "Bibliography") and "External links" from the original Crimes against humanity under communist regimes to this now-renamed article, would you consider such a move to be the merger that you recommended?. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Roman Spinner.VR talk 03:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the notes above about the proposal for a reverse merge and an article title change; I would note that any proposal to directly merge Mass killings under communist regimes into Crimes against humanity under communist regimes would fail for logistical reasons. I think that the reverse merge+article title change idea seems inferior to keeping the existing articles where they are and making each broad, summary style pieces. I will also note that genocide is a distinct category from crimes against humanity (see here), so it's not exactly as easy as to say that one is a child of the other. Any proper sort of merge, therefore, would actually have to be a partial merge that results in two articles: "genocides under communist regimes" and "crimes against humanity under communist regimes", provided that the content describing the various atrocities were to be faithfully preserved in some way. I don't think that this is better than the current situation; we'd return to the same sorts of debates as were had when the page nominated for deletion was titled "communist genocides" and I don't think that this would actually make either supporters of keeping the article or supporters of deleting the article satisfied in any way. As a result, I'm skeptical of more or less any of the merger proposals that have been made. — Mhawk10 (talk) 04:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: but this article isn't "Communist genocide" (and there was consensus a decade ago against that title). Do you think its reasonable to say "mass killings" are a type of crime against humanity?VR talk 07:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AndyTheGrump, Cinadon36, who have put it into words better than I could. Yours, ToeSchmoker (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments made by Nug. Article fits all the notability criteron, and the AfD seems to be a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - let's not sugarcoat this or hide it. Communist governments did (politely put) remove opponents. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The topic is relevant, there have been enough mass killings under communist regimes that I believe that it would warrant an article, even if there are other articles covering works that document the atrocities it is still relevant,what if the other articles that are about these atrocities were to be merged into this article instead? Dellwood546 (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that an article is bad does not mean that it should be deleted. Let's get rid of the WP:SYNTHESIS, not the entire article. Common sense is all we need to know that this topic is notable. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant article, anything in the article worth keeping can me merged.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. After reading most of the delete !votes, I am not convinced that this is anything other than a content dispute that should be solved through ordinary channels. The fact that working on an article is a pain in the ass and that a lot of people are unsatisfied with it is not a ground for deletion per WP:DELREASON. Even if 80% of the article is SYNTH and OR—which I'm not convinced of, but let's assume—the correct response would simply be to remove the disputed content, which would still leave us with 60k bytes worth of policy-compliant information. JBchrch talk 21:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And how do you respond to the argument that its structure and a title makes it fundamentally incompatible with WP:SS (the only format that is allowed per our policy for that type articles)? Paul Siebert (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    80% of OR (and POV) IS a reason for deletion per WP:ATD-E Paul Siebert (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that the title is inconsistent with SS. As for the assumption that the structure of the article would contradict SS, I would respond that it's a content dispute, not a deletion argument. As for WP:ATD-E, could you clarify? I read it as saying that "stubification" is an alternative to deletion. JBchrch talk 22:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A violation of NPOV can be seen as a content dispute, but, simultaneously, it is a reason for deletion.
    And, keep in mind that I didn't support deletion during last AfD. Since then, the situation became even worse. Do you sincerely believe that is the article will be kept the situation may improve? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To check is the title is consistent, just look if this term is widely used in, e.g. Great Chinese famine or Soviet famine of 1932-33. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As a person who opposed to deletion and supported merging during the previous AfD, I think, stubification is an option. However, how can we prevent addition of the same POV content back? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A violation of NPOV...is a reason for deletion Per WP:ATD-E that is only reserved for severe violations. Violations of NPOV are not even mentionned in WP:DELREASON. At best, severe violations of WP:NOT can be grounds for deletion per WP:DELREASON #14. See also WP:TNT, though: "deleting articles for the purpose of cleanup can be contentious. The purpose of TNT is cleanup (to "..start over")." Re Do you sincerely believe that is the article will be kept the situation may improve? Yeah, why not? Also, and as I already said, difficulties in the editing process is not a ground for deletion. Re Great Chinese famine or Soviet famine of 1932-33: under the assumption that your implicit argument (i.e. these are not "mass killings") is correct, the response should be to remove mentions of these events from the article. Which is another way of saying that this is a content dispute. Re how can we prevent addition of the same POV content back?: I think you are bordering on assuming some sort of bad faith on behalf of the community as a whole. But if we AGF, there are no reason to think that the community will allow POV content to be left in the article or added back to it. JBchrch talk 22:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There is no real encyclopedic value to this article. This article, as it currently exists, consists entirely of synopses or summaries of existing articles about mass killings in communist regimes. This article doesn't invite any insightful debate either, with editing disputes only involving what amounts to a "mass killing" and a "communist regime". The article itself isn't insightful and doesn't really justify its existence since other than being a mere compilation of existing articles. It is frequently used to suggest a link between communism and mass killings, or that communism inevitably and necessarily leads to such outcomes. If this article at least discussed that argument, it would be discussing something new and would be marginally more than a simple compilation (not to suggest that such an addition would necessarily justify this article either). This article is therefore redundant, and neither noteworthy nor insightful. Another point to consider is that the original articles provide far more social and historical context about the killings, since the causes of such events are pretty complex and rarely if ever just boil down to merely "communism". --vi5in[talk] 22:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
vi5in: Articles of this type are explicitly allowed, as a "summary style" article. Articles on, for example, WWII, are necessarily summaries of other articles (on campaigns of the war, for example). "Insight" isn't required for articles. "X of Y" does not imply that all X are caused by Y, or that X will always happen under Y. As has been discussed elsewhere in this discussion, there are scholarly sources discussing links between communism and mass killings. Also, the article does discuss scholarly opinions on this topic; a desire to add more information is not a valid reason for deletion. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then make an article linking communism to mass killings, and discuss it there. Or add the material to the article on criticisms of communism. This article as it exists is redundant. --vi5in[talk] 01:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
vi5in: This article links communism to mass killings. If you mean news articles (or scholarly articles), those already exist. You are directing me to add additional material, but that does not justify deletion; the deletion process should not be used in place of article cleanup. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't. It presents itself as a summary article. I would be ok with renaming and rewriting it as an article that specifically talks about the alleged link between mass killings and communism, as long as it includes criticisms of that view as well. Or that allegation can be added to article in criticisms of communism. I'm not asking you personally to add it; only that it can. This article is redundant. --vi5in[talk] 02:28, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained, "summary style" article are allowed, but this one doesn't meet WP:SS criteria. And its structure is fundamentally incompatible with WP:SS. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. That other articles exist isn't a reason. If that is the only argument for this article, then it really underscores the fact that it has no other merits. It is completely redundant. --vi5in[talk] 15:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is renamed to mass deaths under communists regimes, the same delete !voters will dispute that the exact term "mass deaths" isn't used by any scholar. Any mortal would think "mass killing" to be a neutral term, but Paul Siebert turned what was originally a dab page into a "concept" in late 2018, long after MkuCR created, which gave him a new talking point that MKuCR is a POVFORK. --Nug (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I will not. I myself proposed to rename this article to something of that kind.
If you believe I created a POV-fork, please, report me and initiate AfD. I would love to see how will you delete Mass killing. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep passes GNG which is honestly all that is required to be satisifed. There are numerous, historic and notable works and events that are based on the premise of this page. We have had many discussions over the notability of this page, and the overwhelming consensus is that is should be kept. I honestly find it a little ridiculous that this discussion is still being held.--Ortizesp (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a well-referenced article on a topic of much historical note. Praemonitus (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC. --Nug (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That link is to Wikipedia:Article titles#Non-judgmental descriptive titles ~ cygnis insignis 04:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NDESC:
"However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources."
The terms "Mass killings" and "communist regimes" are both terms commonly used in the sources. --Nug (talk) 04:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... but not a combination thereof. Paul Siebert (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of sources here. --Nug (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How about that? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Looking at the titles your search returns junk, my search returns more relevant titles to the topic area. --Nug (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please, show that majority of your 1,640 sources contain relevant information, and majority of my 1,510 sources are junk. Or stop playing this silly game. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, your colleague had edited the page unhindered for three months since August, racking up a massive 79.4% of all edits for that period. --Nug (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Acolyte" is a personal attack, and I am honestly tired of getting insulted like this. You need to stop it. Davide King (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't my intent, I've changed it to "colleague", better? --Nug (talk) 05:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(@Paul) Global hunger hasn't been solved in 100+ years, so by your logic, we should give up on solving that? It's not my job to fix this mess, but I'm certainly within my place to call out usage of AfD as a lazy man's escape from difficult topics. Rome wasn't built in a day, and if someone wants to fix this content problem once and for all, then more power to them; AfD, is not, was not, and will not be the solution. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't. However, the edits, which were made mostly by another users, face a severe opposition and demands to restore old content. That is a good demonstration that the article is unfixable. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then use standard Wikipedia processes to address the problem of editors demanding to restore old content. WP:ANI exists. WP:RFPP exists. WP:DR exists. So many tools on your toolbelt, so why reach for AfD to address this issue? --benlisquareT•C•E 05:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Benlisquare: I did that. I was in the middle of DR when this AfD started. However, more than 12 years of incessant conflicts and edit wars around that article demonstrated that standard Wikipedia processes are not working. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And deletion is a way to solve it. As I already demonstrated, NO information will be removed from Wikipedia by this deletion, all of that can be found in other article, although that information is more balanced and correct. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion isn't necessary for a rewrite, Talk:Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes/sandbox can be utilised for that. --Nug (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • BD2412, we have tried and/or discussed how to fix it for over a decade; I see deletion as the means for a rewrite (I support a rewrite along those lines). We do not have such articles because they are also OR/SYNTH. And by NPOV, we do not mean that — the article fails NPOV because majority sources are country experts and specialists (e.g. historians who write in an individual, separated context, not a global grouping), genocide scholars (core source of MKuCR) are minority sources (they are not relied on by country specialists and experts, e.g. Werth in the The Black Book of Communism does not rely at all on Rummel but on Soviet specialists, and they do not link communism and mass killing) — this is the contradiction and NPOV/OR/SYNTH issue. That a number of mass killings indeed happened under one or more Communist regimes is not sufficient to support the currently structured article (it needs a major rewrite/restructuring), just like that mass killings also equally happened in capitalist, Christian, or Indo-European language regimes is not a sufficient way to link such regimes — we need a much clearer and stronger link than this. Even if this does not change your mind, I hope this clarified what are some of our arguments. Davide King (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is when we disagree about the main topic, its scope, and structure. Is it about a Communist death toll? Is it about a list of Communist mass killings? Is it about a link between Communism and mass killings? I think merging those has the same problems of any other Mass killing under ... regimes article. It would be better to separate the two, e.g. (1) [List of] Communist mass killings/List of mass killings under Communist regimes/List of mass deaths under Communist regimes and (2) Communism/Communist state(s) and mass killing(s). Is this a possibility? Davide King (talk) 06:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are genocide scholars not the relevant group of scholars for... mass killings? It seems like this would be in their area of expertise and that they would probably be the most relevant in these more general sorts of questions on what "mass killings" are. — Mhawk10 (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep:: Well written article with good sources, deleting it would be a case of WP:JDL. However as stated by many above, I am of the opinion that this already very long article could be merged with the article Crimes against humanity in communist regimes. The fact that this is nominated for deletion for the fourth time suggests to me slight ideological motivation behind it. ed (talk) 06:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nug, Mikehawk10 and others who have adduced convincing scholarly evidence that the topic itself (as opposed to its component parts) is a legitimate area of study and documentation. — Biruitorul Talk 07:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - definately notable.XavierGreen (talk) 07:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, But: It has severe problems. It is very WP:SYNTHy. Too much to be ok, but not irretrievably. It collects too much, country by country, that does not fit the title well enough. WP:COATRACK applies. I think it should be stripped down to cases that discuss explicitly “mass killings” and “communism”, and in a worldwide context. It should not collect examples that are not the subject of secondary source commentary as a worldwide case of communist mass killings. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you supported 'Keep', yours is a good comment that takes our criticism seriously and understand it ("collect examples that are not the subject of secondary source commentary as a worldwide case of communist mass killings [emphasis mine]" — this is why it is SYNTH, and it is not enough that there are sources about Communist mass killings, there needs to be majority scholarly, rather than popular or minority, sources that do that for us; 'Keep' supporters say there are but I do not think they support what they think, and they are free to disagree) — so SmokeyJoe, I wanted to personally thank you for it. I do advocate deletion as a means to rewrite along those lines, since I do not think the issues you mentioned can be fixed if it is kept due the polarization and controversy among us — just look at accuses, canvassing, insults, and personal attacks, which proved my point that such issues cannot be fixed if we kept the article or do not reduce it to stub status. Davide King (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The WP:SYNTH argument seems to keep returning to the same No True Scotsman meets Denying the Correlative fallacy: no true communist regime mass murders people and if they did it was due to unique contingent circumstances. It is hard to see that as anything other than motivated reasoning. Twospoonfuls (εἰπέ) 10:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Twospoonfuls: I think that's quite a major misrepresentation of the root of the argument. While I cannot speak for every person that spoke on the SYNTH nature of this article, I reiterate that the core issue is creating a throughline across all "communist regimes" as understood by the editors, and linking all of them using sources that talk about some of the discussed regimes. So, you have some editors citing a book about the Soviet Union and the PRC, but extending the claims made therein to North Korea or SFR Yugoslavia. The whole article lobs in demicide, politicide, genocide, and executions of enemy combatants into the same box, and uses various sources discussing those things without proper context and oftentimes extending the conclusions made that pertain to a particular regime onto other regimes with no basis other than OR (specifically the aforementioned SYNTH). The crux of the matter is - this is inherent to an article of this type. Unless you can find me a source that discusses all of the regimes (of which I count in the very least 12!), therefore providing a meaningful throughline holding the article together, this article has no factual basis to rest on. It's nothing to do with "true communism" or anything of the sort. EuanHolewicz432 (talk) 11:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed ad nauseam in the talk page and DRN and this has nothing to do with "as understood by editors". Scope of communist state is based on self-declared allegiance with communism, and more specifically Marxism-Leninism. Countries where the single ruling party is called Communist Party of Soviet Union or Communist Party of China are good examples. The fact that there were countless mutations of communism (such as Trotskyism, Eurocommunism) doesn't preclude the fact that the most successful and widespread variant was based on Marxism-Leninism while most variants (such as Eurocommunism) remain niche and never gained any real power. Then, it's a fact that many countries have since mutated their state ideology, such as North Korea into Juche and China into Maoism (and later authoritarian capitalism), which however doesn't erase the fact that originally they started from Marxism-Leninism and that period coincided with the intensification of mass-scale extermination of population as part of class war, which is precisely what the article is talking about. Cloud200 (talk) 12:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Given the vast size of this discussion (356,864 bytes and 125 !votes as of right now), it's unlikely that I will be able to tread new ground here. You can take my word for it that I agree with what's been said above, as far as policy- and guideline-based rationales go. So perhaps I can contribute a rationale that isn't policy- and guideline-based: the mere existence of this AfD is quite embarrassing. I don't think people here are being very appreciative of that fact. Normal people (i.e. not Wikipedia editors or extremely online types) see this kind of thing and think "wow, what a clown show". Why shouldn't they? They are looking at an article which has "This article is being considered for deletion" in a huge box at the top. Of course there are going to be memes about it. I am not looking forward to being cornered at cocktail parties years from now to explain what the hell was going on here: "Listen, people weren't trying to delete all evidence of the genocides from Wikipedia, they were just trying to delete the article specifically about them, but a lot of people were saying the content could be merged into other articles, no I'm serious, it was just made as an AfD because someone decided to do that instead of requesting a merge". I don't really get the proposal where we delete the article and then recreate it... what? A day later? An hour later? To write basically all of the same stuff that was there before? Surely, if we want to change the content of the article, we could do this in a less dramatic way (say, for example, by letting the currently active dispute resolution take its natural course). Perhaps this would result in the article being improved, rather than a 300+ kilobyte circus tent of an AfD which literally ends up in newspapers. Everyone here ought to get a commemorative T-shirt with "I SURVIVED AN AFD THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A MERGE PROPOSAL ON THE TALK PAGE" on it in huge letters. Especially the reporters -- by the way, put me in the screenshot this time, guys -- but seriously, come on. jp×g 10:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a simple Google search reveals numerous articles about this topic (that communist regimes kill lots of people). I don't know that I'm thrilled with the article title, but there are reliable sources on the topic, e.g. [28][29][30]. This is not a novel syntheseis invented by Wikipedia, but, rather, a synthesis made by news and scholarly sources. --B (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    These are all opinion pieces or blogs. 15 (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And? The are opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, and USA Today. This isn't a blog entry on joesanticommunismrant.blogspot.com. You can argue about what weight one view should get vs another, but the whole point of WP:SYNTH is that we shouldn't be making novel connections that aren't being made by news media/academia/whatever. Clearly this is not a novel connection that Wikipedia is inventing. --B (talk) 13:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are opinion pieces, I don't where the idea it is a "novel synthesis" is mentioned anywhere else. ~ cygnis insignis 13:46, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - That the subject cannot possibly be WP:SYNTH is belied by the very researchers cited: Rosefielde, Karlsson, Courtois, Rummel, etc. Hint: they all study the title subject, from one angle or another, with body counts. For the article to be SYNHT, none of these authors would be covering "Mass Killings Under Communist Regimes" —they might cover Mass Killings in China, or they might cover Mass Killings in Cambodia. But they don't: they each cover Mass Killings in a range of Communist regimes. Thus the subject is legitimate.
    Now, if there are WP:NPOV issues... well, then, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.
    That these conditions are so self-evident should motivate the closer to consider sanctions to the OP for bringing up such a trivial AfD.XavierItzm (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the definition of synthesis. In comparison, some rapists are politically conservative, but we don't have an article called "Conservative sex crimes." That's because such an article would imply that conservatives had a proclivity toward sex crimes. If that is true, then we would need realible sources to say whether the connection had been proved. TFD (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @The Four Deuces:. This really is the fundamental issue here, several editors seem to believe that what is being challenged is the notability/synthetic nature of the idea that communists committed mass killings, but rather that a link can be drawn between Communist countries regarding the committing of mass killings and their nature. This is a connection and a claim that is at best a minority view and at worst WP:FRINGE, which is not and likely will never be indicated by the article due to how it takes the fundamental assumption as fact, that there is a notable connection to be made other than "X was Communist, Y was Communist, both killed lots of people". BSMRD (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If, as in the case of "mass killings under communist regimes", you could find numerous media and academic sources covering "conservative sex crimes" as a topic, then maybe that would be an appropriate topic for an article. I look at this article as more analogous to left-wing terrorism or right-wing terrorism. Sure, there's some "list" aspect to them, but both topics are extensively covered as a collective topic outside of Wikipedia. --B (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @XavierItzm: please retract that last statement, or post it in the relevant place, maybe AN/I. ~ cygnis insignis 14:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep research topic in the academic world as shown by other editors. Super Ψ Dro 14:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "nice" to see Wikipedia is not even trying to hide its communist apologia anymore... Noxian16 (talk) 14:37, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User notified about changing comments while voting. ~ cygnis insignis 15:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - to Crimes against humanity under communist regimes. I was tempted to !vote a simple "keep", as the topic clearly passes GNG. However, I am sympathetic to the complaints about not being able to clearly define which of several notable sub-topics the article should focus on. A merger might help break thavt stalemate. In short - Notability isn't the problem. Defining the article's focus is the problem. Blueboar (talk) 15:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blueboar, thank you for your respectful and not dismissive comment. Davide King (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blueboar, agree. I think that several folks that are more of the observer types have said the same thing as your "Defining the article's focus is the problem." North8000 (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Blueboar: and @North8000:, please, read my post were I voted for deletion and explain what is wrong with my rationale. I am really curious why you don't see that the article is a POV-fork. It's structure is fundamentally inconsistent with Summary style, because it puts all subtopics into a context of Communism and implies the former was a primary factor. The "daughter articles" are more balanced, and some of them tell completely different stories. Therefore, I absolutely cannot understand why you see no policy violation here. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Paul Siebert: I have a problem with much of your post. You are in essence demanding that I prove a negative one of your points which is unrelated to our posts, and impling that if I / we don't do that that our post is not valid or refuted. Also you are sort of dominating this page with similar posts. On your "implies the former was a primary factor" I haven't analyzed this article in enough depth to know if it has that problem. If so, it's a problem that needs to be fixed rather than being inherent in the topic. I think that a scholarly article that analyzes the possibility of communism being a promary or contributing factor (including indirectly via the things that go along with such regimes/takeovers) would be a valid narrowed/focused topic for this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @North8000: Yes, I agree that my behaviour on that page does not look standard. However, the situation when the same absolutely superficial and wrong arguments re-appear again and again in numerous !votes is not normal either. Non-standard cases demand non-standard measures. This article is very popular, it is reproduced by numerous Wikipedis mirrors and sold by Amazon, and therefore it has a huge citogeneic potential. I think that explains my behaviour.
      You write that you haven't analyzed this article in enough depth, and that is a problem. The article has huge and fundamental problems, but they are seen only to those who performs a deep analysis. These problems make it fundamentally inconsistent with our policy. I am ready to present a comprehensive analysis of unfixable POV-forking, heavy misinterpretation of sources and SYNTH. I am not going to present my conclusions, I will present facts, which can be independently verified.
      WRT "On your "implies the former was a primary factor"", you don't need to do a deep analysis to understand if that is a problem. If some article combines a set of events in a single topic, this fact implies that there is a significant linkage between them, and this linkage is recognised as significant by majority of scholars/scientists. Otherwise, what could prevent us from writing, for example, the article "Mass killings committed by Black (or White, or Asian) people"?
      WRT " I think that a scholarly article that analyzes the possibility of communism being a primary etc", yes, that is what I myself was proposing during last several years. However, that article would say not "Communists killed 100 million because they were Communists" (that is a brief summary of the current version of the article), but "Some authors (Prof X, Mr Y, Dr. Z) claim that a number of genocides, mass killings and premature deaths (up to 100 million in total) are attributed to Communism as a promary cause. Other authors (Prof A, Mrs B, Dr C) disagree". That is absolutely not the article most "keep" voters would like to see, and this rewrite is tantamount to a complete article's deletion.
      And that is a reason why, if this article will be kept, it will never be converted into the article as you and I see it. And now try to answer me: do you really think you can support keeping this article? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert: I stated my position as neutral on this AFD and gave my rationale in my post.North8000 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

[edit]
  • Comments to participants and closer
    Comments (More) – I have a few more comments, both for the participants in the AFD, and requests to the closer.
  1. This will be a difficult close for the closer for several reasons:
  2. The length of the back-and-forth discussion, which the closer will mostly but not entirely ignore.
  3. Many of the Keep !votes do not address the reasons given by the nominator. Some of the Keep statements say that this is a notable topic and is well-sourced. While the large majority of Articles for Deletion nominations are either for lack of notability or for lack of verifiability (and lack of notability and lack of verifiability are inseparable, because notability is usually defined by significant coverage), this nomination is largely for other reasons, including non-neutrality and original research.
  4. Some of the Keep !votes are really against communism more than in favor of a specific article about atrocities committed in the name of communism.
  • Comments to the participants:
  1. There is little value in responding to another !vote unless you either are asking the other editor to change their !vote, which is not going to happen, or are asking the closer to discount their reasons.
  • Requests to the closer:
  1. Please explain how the arguments were assessed, especially since some of the Keep statements appear not to address the reasons given for Deletion.
  2. If the article is Kept, please identify any rough consensus as to how the article should be improved.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, there are several editors that are arguing that the topic is non-notable (in spite of more or less extraordinary significant coverage). I don't think that some of the Keep statements appear not to address the reasons given for Deletion quite gives off that impression. And, there are many, many responses by keep editors that argue that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP and the OR/NPOV issues are not really motivating for a wholesale deletion of encyclopedic content. — Mhawk10 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Robert McClenon, and while the closer or closers (if it is decided to a have panel, which I have read it was proposed) may ignore the back-and-forth discussion, I hope they can read most of both sides' argument, including my sandbox for full rationale and possible solutions and alternatives, including not outright deletion. As for notability, can you please identify those users? I think that is mainly Levivich, and even then I think it is due to a lack of understanding of the topic — e.g. Levivich, and they are free to correct me, may find notable a topic that discusses the views of those who said Communism was the greatest murderer of the 20th century, which is the real notable topic in the popular press and proposed by a minority of scholars (Courtois, Rummel), but not MKuCR because most scholarly (emphasis mine) sources, as this article treats it as a scholarly discourse and/or consensus, do not treat mass killings under Communist regimes as a separate category and/or topic (of course, you are free to disagree and we have already discussed this at length, so let us agree to disagree on this). Davide King (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Davide King: Earlier in this discussion, you stated that I do not necessarily disagree that it is not notable. Should I read your above statement to indicate that you now accept that the topic is notable, or do you still have doubts about the subject's notability? — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An OR/SYNTH article is clearly not notable, which is why I think Levivich has taken that direction — if it is indeed OR/SYNTH as we assert, it is not notable, but that does not mean that an article about a much better clear and clarified, similar topic can not be written, which is why I advocate rewrite. So to answer your question, it depends on what topic we are discussing — Communist death toll? A list of mass killings under Communist regimes? Link between communism and mass killing?
As I understand it, the article merges all those together, which in my view is the source of the issues, as it mainly includes the views of those who support such link; an additional problem is that many scholars do not write within the context of a generic or global Communist grouping but limit themselves to one Communist state, like the Soviet Union, and/or do not treat it as a monolithic, and those who disagree with the whole concept of Communist death toll and body-counting in general, who cannot be included in the current article because they either did not write about it or have ignored it for the aforementioned reasons.
As I told you already, I actually support an article around this topic — I simply think that the best way to accomplish a good article is to rewrite it along those lines. When we are dismissed, attacked, insulted, and shamed as Communist apologists and denialists (not all 'Keep' users did this, and I personally thank them for it), which could not be further from the truth, I do not see how we can fix issues or improve the article after over a decade of attempts at both practice and discussion level — that is simply not a good environment to work in together and I think that deletion, or reduction to stub, with a name change and possible merge/splits could be a solution. Davide King (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The SYNTH argument is truly deprecated when universities offer the topic. --Nug (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Robert McClenon: I don’t think that is a fair characterization. The reason given by the nominator was that the title is synthesis. However any issue with the title is a content issue that is best handled with a Move request, not AfD, so many keep !voters have been in fact addressing the nomination with the argument WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, which also address the NPOV issues that can be addressed as content DR. At least couple of the prominent delete !voters believed the nomination was poorly written and have focused on other reasons they see not mentioned in the nom. So a lot of the keep !voters have been responding to those other reasons.
My response to the nominator’s reason that the title being a synthesis, is that it is a descriptive title per WP:NDESC:
”However, non-neutral but common names (see preceding subsection) may be used within a descriptive title. Even descriptive titles should be based on sources, and may therefore incorporate names and terms that are commonly used by sources.”
The terms "Mass killings" and "communist regimes" are both terms commonly used in the sources related to the topic. —Nug (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's starting to SNOW As of this comment, a very quick and rough count has 108 Keep - 34 Delete with a handful of other recommendations including merges. A large percentage of the pro-Keep comments were prefixed with the word "Strong." Conceding that AfD is NOTAVOTE, IMHO we are getting very close to the point where this could be reasonably closed on a SNOW basis. The quality of debate has been fairly strong on both sides and in such circumstances the vote count does matter. I can't recall any instance where an article was deleted with a margin of roughly 3:1 favoring Keep. To say that it would require an extraordinary explanation to dismiss such an overwhelming margin and delete the page would be a gross understatement. As someone who has been on the losing end of my share of AfDs; I note that we are not obliged to like the consensus in discussions. But we are required to respect it. And I think we have reached a point where that consensus is clear. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's SNOWING in November!. Like Ad Orientem, I agree that it's extremely clear that there is not going to be any possible consensus in which this page is anything but kept. As Smallbones and B noted on the talk page for this AfD, there's no reason to prolong this ever-expanding conversation when policy-based arguments for keep seem to have overwhelming support. After all, the Snowball clause states that [i]f an issue has a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process.— Mhawk10 (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    " Let me make it very clear again that every SNOW close will go straight to DRV and possibly to ArbCom. I would also strongly recommend against single-admin close, a panel is needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And it should be easily endorsed at DRV, owing to this being a plain reading of the snowball clause. Implying without any analysis of WP:SNOW that this would result in administrative actions against people contributes little meaningful substance. And, even if you believe that a panel is needed, I see no need for the panel to wait any further to make their close. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Ymblanter - Why do you mention ArbCom? How could ArbCom be involved? This is a content dispute, and DRV is the final authority on content disputes. I think that we have avoided having conduct issues. Why do you mention ArbCom? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people can decide that such close is so bad that it is incompatible with the status of administrator. Whereas it is unlikely someone can lose a flag over this close, just that fact of being dragged to ArbCom and exposed to all kinds of shit because of one has done, not done, possibly done, or theoretically culd have done is extremely stressful, and I do not wish it to anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With roughly 3/4 of 142 !votes favoring Keep any outcome other than that IMO could not be reached w/o the closing admin(s) substituting their judgement for that of the community. It is NOT the job of a closing admin to decide who is right in AfD discussions. It's their job to decide who the community thinks is right. Admins may in some circumstances discount comments or reduce the weight to others for compelling reasons. But again, the closers main job is to identify consensus, not judge who is right or wrong. That's the community's job. In the present circumstance I do not believe any admin could close this as anything other than Keep. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why the panel is needed - they can cross out the canvassed votes, evaluate the strength of the arguments, and see what is left without having to face a perspective to be dragged to Arbcom for a supervote.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why close it? Closing a discussion early only leads to hurt feelings and the sense that a request was not given its due consideration. If there's a purely disruptive discussion or people are incapable of behaving themselves and having a rational discussion, okay, fine, whatever. But this discussion seems civil and seems appropriate. I don't see a good reason to terminate it early. --B (talk) 20:07, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One reason is that nominator forgot to log the discussion until several days later, so the discussion going to run longer than normal. --Nug (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No panel is needed. Stevie Wonder could see the consensus. Again, it is not an admins job to judge who is right or wrong. Discounting comments other than for very compelling reasons (socking, frivolous, double voting and the like) is a no no. And while CANVASSING is not allowed, how does one identify canvassed votes? And even if you could, by what authority do you discount them? I have never seen that done and am unaware of any policy or guideline that allows it. With respect to "why close it?" See WP:SNOWBALL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ad Orientem: I see no need in screening out the canvassed votes. The reason is simple: if you scroll up, you can see a message informing you that that is not a !vote. Therefore, even if you canvass a million of users who repeat the same false and weak arguments, that does not make this argument valid or strong.
If you stop thinking in terms of numbers, all problems with canvassing disappear. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: Why should this discussion be extended simply because it was not logged properly? There is nothing preventing us from ending this discussion the normal way by November 29 because one of Wikipedia's five pillars is "Wikipedia has no firm rules". X-Editor (talk) 20:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Canvassing was via some external news sites and IP's have been blocked from commenting on this AfD anyway. --Nug (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a democracy, and while I think there would have been more users that would have voted for 'Keep' than 'Delete', it would not be such a huge difference without canvassing and/or SPAs (some users made their first few edits commenting on this to 'Keep'). I believe both sides gave their worthy arguments that should not be dismissed outright like this — a panel can ensure that every comment is worth it and reduce the work and time of a single closer, and address each side's arguments and the controversy to end it once and for all, whatever the result. Whatever the results, I want no excuses from both sides, and the best way to avoid any controversy, hard feelings, and what B said, is to have a panel; if you are confident about your arguments, you have nothing to fear. Davide King (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's only 'two' outcomes: So, I ain't gonna stress over it. GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment especially in regards to dealing with inevitable DRV issues, agree with proposal for a panel of admins for closure of this AfD (possibly panel could incorporate a non-admin as long as in a minority, eg 1 of 3, and non-involved). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If a panel is needed, then definitely no non-admins should be included as their understanding of policy hasn't been tested via WP:RFA. --Nug (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. In connection to that, it would be helpful to summarise all pro et contra. I started to write a draft where all arguments are summarized, but, since I am not neutral in that dispute, I propose people from the "Keep" camp to join this work. We can create a separate subpage/section for this summary. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone has stated their positions already, we don't need to keep restating them ad nauseam. --Nug (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, one closer is enough, but if yas want a panel of three? No prob. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree one is enough. Given the news coverage on Fox News with stories like Inside Wikipedia's leftist bias: socialism pages whitewashed, communist atrocities buried, I can imagine them running: "Wikipedia troika overturns AfD snow vote to delete Communist mass killings article." Stranger things have happened. --Nug (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the headline, certainly would be in accord with Fox standards. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I love the TV series Succession. --Nug (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One closer is far from enough. Whether you agree or not with the discussion, its scope in recent news can't be downplayed ; we're leaving the realm of encyclopedic information, and entering the world of politics. At this point, whether we keep or delete the article will probably have an impact on the global reception of Wikipedia. I personnaly don't care if tinfoil people don't think Wikipedia is reliable, however the consequences of this AfD could be far greater than expected, and the community and the general public will probably prefer a panel closing. Also, there is an apparent gap between the community emerging from this. A panel would help resolve that better. And if QTV and related medias are calling Wikipedia editors "liberal cuck snowflakes destroying Western civilisation" anyways if we end up removing it, I'll take that as a fucking compliment at this point. Larrayal (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reading through the article, it seems to rely heavily on WP:SYN from the Black Book of Communism. This is extremely problematic, since the Black Book is widely regarded as not particularly reliable, espicalially wrt the specific numbers it gives. Thi article seems to exist primarly to use WP:SYN to "prove" the Black Book's thesis, specifically by presenting widely sperated events as a single reified phenonmenon, without historigraphic sources to justify this. Echoing many of the other "Delete" comments, given the seeming inablity to resolve prolems, even after 3 other AfDs, suggests that it is not, and will never be encyclopedic. CamAnders (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm loath to make this page too much longer, so plainly: The WP:SYNTH problems are too great to ignore. If people want to have articles on Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot they already exist, but tying them together like this is just absurd, and not supported as a cohesive topic by the sources. The existence of a cottage industry that tries to make this throughline into something more than it is isn't compelling to me when the literature plainly doesn't support it. Future condolences to the panel of admins for making it this far down the page. Parabolist (talk) 00:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to List of mass killings under communist regimes. Mass murders under communist regimes is an encyclopedic topic that has received substantial coverage in academic sources. While some of these sources cover mass killings as a whole, most of the coverage covers specific mass killings. I believe that simply editing the title a bit will take care of the SYNTH problem and be more in-line with the sources. I do not support deletion as many sources do make connections between the killings. Also, these regimes were operating under the same general ideology within the same time-frame and that were cooperating against the US and allies; its silly to argue that these regimes were completely unrelated to each other. Regarding NPOV, we are not required to whitewash travesties. If adherents of a certain ideology have a long, well-documented history of committing crimes against humanity then this should absolutely be covered where relevant. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirit of Eagle: You said "many". Besides a 2-3 sources that are repeatedly named here, which sources do you mean? A couple hours ago, one unpublished university source taught by a non-expert in the topic was presented as such a source. Maybe, you know other sources? Please, drop the references. Paul Siebert (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nug and Mhawk10 have listed multiple academic sources covering mass killing in general. I’m going to refrain from relisting them as this page is already so long my computer is lagging. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Spirit of Eagle: I am familiar with those sources. Only 2 or 3 of them really "cover mass killings as a whole", and each of them has its own Wikipedia article. That is why I am asking if you can present other sources. To prevent inflation of this discussion, can you please answer on the talk page? Paul Siebert (talk) 05:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should the article survive deletion, listifying the article and simply forgoing the analytical parts may indeed be the best way forward, allowing the relevant articles to discuss the circumstances of each in detail. BSMRD (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify one thing, it is not our mere opinion that these regimes were completely unrelated to each other (they were not completely unrelated but certainly there were significant differences that the "generic Communism" grouping lacks) but views of mainstream and respected historians.
    • Dallin, Alexander (2000). "Reviewed Work(s): The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression by Stéphane Courtois, Nicolas Werth, Jean-Louis Panné, Andrzej Paczkowski, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Margolin, Jonathan Murphy and Mark Kramer". Slavic Review. 59 (4): 882‒883. doi:10.2307/2697429. JSTOR 2697429. Whether all these cases, from Hungary to Afghanistan, have a single essence and thus deserve to be lumped together—just because they are labeled Marxist or communist—is a question the authors scarcely discuss.
    • David-Fox, Michael (Winter 2004). "On the Primacy of Ideology. Soviet Revisionists and Holocaust Deniers (In Response to Martin Malia)". Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 5 (1): 81–105. doi:10.1353/kri.2004.0007. [Martin Malia is able to link disparate regimes, from radical Soviet industrialists to the anti-urbanists of the Khmer Rouge, under the guise of a] generic communism [category] defined everywhere down to the common denominator of party movements founded by intellectuals.
    Davide King (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Should we understand the Dallin and David-Fox articles to be responding to other scholars who do link the various kinds of Communist regimes together? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metropolitan90: Quite an opposite. They (as well as many other authors) are explicitly disagreeing with that. David-Fox explicitly says the idea about some "generic Communism" is baseless, and the idea to link all deaths into one category is flawed and ahistorical. However, I suggest to continue this discussion on the talk page, where I can present representative quotes. Paul Siebert (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you miss the words "responding to other scholars" in my comment above? I'm talking about the idea of Dallin and David-Fox taking one perspective and Courtois et al. and Malia taking the other perspective. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Metropolitan90: Ops... Take a look at the talk page, I am providing extended quotes that explain everything. Dallin's article is a review on the Balck Book. David-Fox is responding to Malia (that follows from the title). With regard to other scholars, frankly, I am not sure whom do you mean (I don't know anybody). I am doing a comprehensive search of sources in attempts to figure out who those "other scholars" are. So far, I haven't found anything significant, which reinforces my original concern that the article is a blatant POV-fork. However, I am in a progress now, so my conclusion is not final, and it may change. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is hard to go through this long dispute, but I find “communist regimes” an arbitrary categorization for grouping “mass killings”. How about “Mass killings under monarchic regimes” then? Or “Mass killings under theocratic regimes”? I am in favor of splitting the page into different pages titled “Mass killings under XXX regime” (Soviet Union, People's Republic of Bulgaria, whatever). Exactly like monarchy or democracy, communism itself does not mandate mass killings. --Grufo (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Its a notable topic and well referenced, can't see any reason why this should be deleted. Kiwichris (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a highly impactful historical topic, and the page in question serves as an important counterweight to the article Anti-communist mass killings. I advocate keeping due not only to the topic's importance to history, but also in the interest of balance. If this page shouldn't be allowed to exist, why should its opposite? Loltardo (talk) 16:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the actual fuck ? This is the worst argument I've ever seen for keeping the article. Shall we make an article about Jewish mass killing to counter the Holocaust article ? We absolutely don't need article "counterweighting" each other. And if we want to counter it anyway, we already have plenthy about the Holodomor, Great Leap Forward, etc. This is just... wrong... Larrayal (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another new user, perhaps link an introduction to AfD rather than raising the temperature any more. ~ cygnis insignis 23:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: To make a comprehensive and unbiased evaluation of the article neutrality/NPOV issues, I started to collect and summarize all scholarly sources on that topic. This unbiased search is in progress, and everybody (including the members of the admins panel) may see it on this AfD's talk page. The search is in progress, I am posting a summary of each source in real time, so, please, comment on them only when you see some serious error there.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why not actually place the source evaluation in the AfD, the proper place for the deltion arguments to take place, so that the community can evaluate the so-called comprehensive and unbiased evaluation that you are putting together from a so-called unbiased search? Forking discussions onto other pages is typically bad practice. — Mhawk10 (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with Paul Siebert's approach is this: Author XXX publishes a paper on MKuCR, which in turn is cited by 55 other scholars. Paul finds one cite by author YYY that criticizes author XXX's paper and tells us this is proof that XXX is controversial and his paper is junk, but he ignores the fact that the other 54 scholars cite XXX's paper without criticism. So we have the issue of WP:UNDUE with Paul's so called "comprehensive and unbiased evaluation". --Nug (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: Thank you for attempting to summarize my approach, but, alas, your summary is incorrect. My approach is as follows: let's collect a representative sample of sources that discuss, e.g. the idea to come up with some "total estimate of Communist mass killings in a global scale". If majority of the sample discuss that concept seriously, than, ok, that topic is a legitimate part of a scholarly discourse. If majority of sources criticise it, than that topic should not be a core concept of the article. How to collect a representative sample, and how should we interpret the sources - that is a subject of a calm and respectful discussion. I am open to it, but so far my opponents prefer to filibuster or derail if by irrelevant commentary. Sometimes, you make good and insightful comments, which give me a hope we may start some reasonable dialogue. However, as a rule, it has no continuation. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mhawk10: Some users criticize me for making too many posts in this AfD. Partially, this criticism is valid. If I put all what I found to this page, I am afraid, it will be too much. However, if you think this information is more pertinent to this page, we can think about moving it here. Let's ask admins.
@Admin panel's members: I am going to present the analysis of a representative sample of RS about that topic to demonstrate validity of the decision to "keep/delete". I am collecting the sources at the talk page. I am still in progress. Do you think the talk page is a correct place for that information? Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to be listing the items on a separate page, there needs to also be room for the community to apply scrutiny to your analysis of those sources. That's the whole point of the AfD page—for the debates regarding deletion to take place. Hosting one's own source analysis on another page doesn't actually do this. — Mhawk10 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fully acknowledge this need, and I invite everyone to join this work. If you already have comments on my search procedure or findings, you are more than welcome to put them to the talk page section. My only request is not to wedge into the list that I am creating, because my work is in progress. Paul Siebert (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Getting rid of that hub of knowledge would not be beneficial to anyone except communism sympathizers such as Davide King and others that try to blatantly redwash current wikipedia. If this article gets deleted, and Anti-communist mass killings is kept (anti-communism ideology does not mandate mass killings, as per delete proponents and their main argument) , then it'd show just how biased this site really is. Arasakacorp (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one problem — you are merging your personal views in your comments, where anyone who does not agree must be "communism sympathizers". For all you know, I may be the strongest anti-communist there is, I am just not expressing my personal views because they do not count, what count are scholarly sources, and I think majority and mainstream scholarly sources do not discuss the topic as we have structured it, which gives the impression that a few authors are the majority and mainstream views, when they are, in fact, a minority. Are Michael Ellman, Sheila Fitzpatrick, J. Arch Getty, Ian Kershaw, Moshe Lewin, Stephen G. Wheatcroft, and many other well-respected scholars in the field, on which I am relying on, pro-Communists? I suppose that if you think anyone who disagrees with Conquest and Courtois, or disagree with equation between Communism and Nazism, and/or think that this is a form of Holocaust obfuscation (again, mainstream scholars' views), is a pro-Communist and leftist, you may reach this conclusion but it is obviously biased and false. Davide King (talk) 22:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are misrepresenting these authors you cite, none of them actually claim that a mass killing did not occur under a communist regime. And reference to the equation of between Communism and Nazism is a red herring, the article does not make that equation. --Nug (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you yourself said, "there is no need to WP:BADGER those that disagree with you" — whether I am right about sources will be analyzed by the closing admin(s). Perhaps you got to the issue of the matter, you are acting as though we are denying that a mass killing did not occur under a communist regimes (universally recognized mass killing events are Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, plus the Red Terror, while the Great Chinese Famine is excluded), when that is the real red herring. No one is disputing anything here, what we are disputing is whether presenting a global Communist tool, and that communism (rather than Communist leaders and many other causes) is the main cause of mass killing, and whether the views presented (Courtois, Rummel) represent a mainstream, majority view rather than a minority view. And whether you realize it or not, the "global Communist death toll" (Courtois, Rummel) has the specific intent of equating with Nazism, saying that Communism was worse, and engage in Holocaust obfuscation — such a topic can actually be discussed but requires rewrite, and I see deletion/reduction to stub as a means to that end. Davide King (talk) 23:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the one directly commenting on almost every delete !vote, unlike you seem to be doing with keep !votes. I'm just responding to your comment which appears to misrepresent what these authors are saying. To accuse Courtois and Rummel of Holocaust obfuscation really is getting into the realm of WP:FRINGE. --Nug (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are not innocent either, and I have stopped, or reduced, doing that — in this case, I commented because I was literally name dropped. In the case of Courtois, he was in fact accused of that, and I did not meant to accuse them, I was saying that was the purpose of Courtois' global death toll, and he did compare race genocide to class genocide, and explicitily said that Nazism killed less people as a point, which totally ignores context (e.g. Nazism being stopped), and did not include deaths by World War II. This is supported by Karlsson 2008, which does criticze your favourite Courtois and Rummel, or did I misrepresent that too? I think the quotes there are clear. Davide King (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A few editors now have commented regarding Anti-communist mass killings, and how this article going but not that one would be unfair or biased. The fundamental difference between this article and that one is that MKuCR draws a connection between disparate perpetrators (one with questionable backing by RS, hence the AfD) while ACMK connects victims, in this case Communists or suspected Communists, in a similar way to Genocide of indigenous peoples. ACMK lacks the analytical prose of MKuCR, instead serving as primarily a list of groups of Communists (real or suspected) killed in masses. BSMRD (talk) 22:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ironically, if this article was structured like that (Communist mass killings), and limited to proper universally recognized mass killings events (Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot), many issues would be immediately solved. Davide King (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Aside from the fact that a significant portion of participants appear to have weighed in due to canvassing, the article simply does not work as a cohesive whole. Reading through, it really does feel like the article is threaded together by users with a specific POV goal. It also strikes me that, reading through the "Ideology" section of the article, it's extremely focused on perspectives that are critical of communist regimes without much in the way of addressing counterarguments. The article feels thoroughly compromised, and I don't think it exists for the sake of historical documentation as much as it does to affirm ideologies. - Whadup, it's ya girl, Dusa (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per Nug, Smallbones, Dahn, Qba0202 et al. The topic is important, it passes easily WP:GNG and the article is comprehensive and well sourced. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that many of the deleters have an ideological aversion to the topic. Alanrhobson (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    An extraordinary conclusion given without method or evidence. ~ cygnis insignis 00:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, plenty of evidence above. Among other examples, the "deleters" above have complained that the article indicates that "the ideology of communism is somehow inherently violent" and complained that it shows a "correlation between socialist states and mass killings". That sounds to me very much like "ideological aversion" to the article/topic. Alanrhobson (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This AFD (like the last several on the same topic) is a disingenuous and politically-motivated attempt to scrub Wikipedia of a historically important article. I can't believe Wikipedia is even having this discussion. If this passes, other denialist groups will inevitable be emboldened to embrace the tactics used by this AFD's proponents and attempt to erase articles on other genocides throughout history. Carl Henderson (talk) 03:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is appropriately sourced. Making people uncomfortable isn't enough to get rid or the article, or by now Creationists would have gotten rid of all articles on Evolution. There is sufficient content that it warranted a large (not stub) article. The best argument so far in favor of delete is WP:TNT. Well, if that's the case, help with the cleanup instead of trying to get rid of the article. My attempts to assume good faith prevent me from thinking this might be some sort of sanitation effort on behalf of people who don't like the content. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 03:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cambridge historian professor Robert Tombs has argued against the deletion of this article and compared doing so to holocaust denial, thoughts? X-Editor (talk) 04:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who reads the papers?. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On a more serious note; Tombs is a specialist in 19th Century French history, he'd be useful if we were discussing the Paris Commune. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tombs says the article is careful and balanced. What makes you better qualified than Tombs to judge? Synthesis is the combination of material from different sources to reach a conclusion that's not already published in any source, this university's published syllabus] shows that conclusion already exists, so there is no synthesis. --Nug (talk) 14:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tombs does not specialize in this subject. I'm sure citing Grover Furr might be appropriate for Medieval English literature, but just because he's a professor in a certain subject of literature, does not mean he is reliable to cite for Stalin. I fail to see why his view is important on this subject, being a historian in one subject does not automatically make you an authority on all historical subjects. There are actual professors specializing in this subject that would disagree with Tombs. RoseCherry64 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: Tombs is without any doubts a very well educated historian, although not an expert in the field. However, many other authors cited in that article (and the authors whom the article excluded, because of its weird structure and title) are good professionals too. And it is quite likely that they might have another opinion. Thus, on the talk page I presented a quote from Nicolas Werth (I believe everybody know who he is: he authored the main chapter of the Black Book, and this chapter is the rock the whole book rests upon), who compared the idea to ascribe all crimes committed by Communist states to Communism with the idea to throw in the face of a liberal the crimes committed in all the countries that claimed to be liberal. I have a feeling that Werth's opinion on this article could be quite different.
In that case, a honest approach would be not to pick an opinion of one author, but to email to 20-30 scholars whom we select after some joint discussion and obtain comments from them. However, that may set a very dangerous precedent, because that puts Wikipedia under control of external experts. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Welll he probably does. It many ways it is the same subject as France has a long history of communist politics, so I'm sure he has an expert handle on it. And even discussing it, is somewhat absurd. The man is a professional historian at the top university in the world. scope_creepTalk 02:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is a reference, and it's important to list all the Communist mass killings in a single place with links for people to find out more. All of the facts are authenticated by appropriate sources. Removing this article could only be an act of censorship or, worse, erasing history for political purposes. User:Exmartian 27 November 2021 — Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article may need improvement in some respects but deletion is unwarrantable. The topic is WP:NOTABLE and the article is well-sourced.--Smerus (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Craig Simpson (27 November 2021). "Wikipedia may delete entry on 'mass killings' under Communism due to claims of bias". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 27 November 2021. Retrieved 28 November 2021. He said: "This is morally indefensible, at least as bad as Holocaust denial, because 'linking ideology and killing' is the very core of why these things are important. "I have read the Wikipedia page, and it seems to me careful and balanced. Therefore attempts to remove it can only be ideologically motivated – to whitewash Communism.
  2. ^ Brendan Luyt, (2015),"Debating reliable sources: writing the history of the Vietnam War on Wikipedia", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 71 Iss 3 pp. 440 - 455. Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/JD-11-2013-0147 [1]
  • Comment. While the mention of all the mass killings listed in the page is certainly encyclopedic, the WP:SCOPE of a Wikipedia article is purely an editorial choice determined by consensus. Given the political nature of this choice, deciding whether listing all mass killings in one page or splitting them into different pages might always be influenced by non-neutrality in the sources, thus cannot rely on what RS do, but only on Wikipedia editors' good arguments (for which what RS do alone might not be sufficient). --Grufo (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only justification for deletion would be if it's a global purge of all articles on mass killings associated with an ideology - for example, the Holocaust. Which in my opinion would be a crime against history. Sharpfang (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Page is well researched and very clearly WP:Notable: the topic has received significant coverage and plenty of secondary literature discusses it. The page discusses how the literature captures a notable trend that spans multiple countries and histories; it itself does not synthesize the material and instead captures these discussions and details instances relevant to these arguments. I agree that the article could certainly use a cleanup, but the topic very clearly stands on its own since a vast amount of literature from academics, journalists, and historians discuss the topic of mass killings under communist regimes as a historical, political, and sociological trend. Toomuchcuriosity (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Why are we even here? The topic is important, the article comprehensive, well referenced, and improveable. The delete request seems to argue that because the deleter thinks this ideology is not inherently coercive, this page must not exit and must be deleted. That's not Wikipedia. Tim bates (talk) 17:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am nowhere near well-acquainted enough with the relevant literature to be able to comment on this with any authority, and maybe that invalidates my opinion, but I would like to lay out my heuristic response nonetheless. Looking at the list of genocides and browsing entries where mean estimated death toll exceeds 1 million - of which there are 15 in total - there are seven which I would describe as not having an obvious political commonality. Of the remaining eight, three were carried out by the German Reich and five were carried out by communist regimes in China (death toll does include some pre-communism genocides), the USSR (three separate incidents) and Cambodia. Perhaps my "Keep" response is simply an argument from ignorance and should be ignored, but I have found myself deeply surprised to read comments claiming that the academic consensus is that this is sheer coincidence and that communism was simply an incidental commonality. Has this always been the academic consensus? If so, I have been profoundly ignorant of this, and I daresay I am not the only one in this position- which I believe explains much of the resistance to deletion. Uranium grenade (talk) 17:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep There is no tangible reason to delete this article. I have read the majority of comments made by proponents who support the deletion of this article, and it ranges anywhere from whataboutism to absolute nitpicks that could be amended by editing the article so I would assume bad faith on this one. However, this AfD is a case of politically-inclined censorship at best and revisionism at worst. Additionally, if this was to be deleted it would set the precedent that any article can be removed regardless of quality if the admins are convinced for it to be removed, therefore, it would give other Authoritarians like Fascists and Nazis the go-ahead to nominate another article of their choosing for deletion, and possibly manage it through the deletion process. They are already professionals when it comes to propaganda, mind games and whitewashing, and I refuse to see that happen either. This AfD and the 3 previous ones should have never occured in the first place.
In short, deleting this article would be a disaster for two reasons:
  1. If this "list aricle" is problematic then we might have to look into the dozens of other articles with the same format e.g: Mass killings under colonial regimes, List of slurs, etc.pushing the KEEP
  2. It would, again, set the precedent for Nazis and Fascists that any article can just be deleted if they chose to and by that I mean they could simply elect an article they do not like for deletion and influence the votees/admins, so it does get removed.
MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 18:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons is a personal attack, so it would be correct is you removed your post, leaving just the part starting with "In short"
WRT your #1&2, that is wrong.
1. You don't understand the difference between a "List article" and a "Summary style". By its structure, it is not a list, and it does not fit WP:SS criteria.
2. If you don't want various Nazis and Fascists to push their agenda, then it is an additional reason to delete this article, which implies that Communism was greater evil than Nazism. I looked through some forums where the AfD is being discussed, and the posts of some supporters of this article are quite pro-Nazi or antisemitic. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSuperstar77: I was also wondering if this deletion discussion is being influenced by tankies. I'm not going to say it most certainly is being influenced by them because it is important to assume good faith. It think the reason why tankies aren't treated as harshly as nazis and fascists on Wikipedia is that tankie has a less clear and more broad definition than nazi or fascist. X-Editor (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but the idea that the delete voters are somehow the ones guilty of manipulating the discussion and somehow influenced by outside forces is patently ridiculous. Look at the news coverage and high-traffic links of/to this page! Every one but The Telegraph is far-right, with the Telegraph "only" being a noted conservative paper, quoting this paragon of neutrality saying Communism has killed more than 100 million people a claim not even the strongest academic supporters of this concept would back! Saying "I'm not going to say this per WP:AGF but..." and then saying it anyways does not exculpate you from AGF violations. BSMRD (talk) 19:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BSMRD: I never said that the discussion isn't being manipulated by right-wingers too because it most certainly is being manipulated by them, whataboutism is not a vaild argument. I also never explicitly said that the discussion is for certain being influenced by tankies, I just brought up the possibility. X-Editor (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSuperstar77: I think it would be more correct to say that the two camps are divided by another criterion: the first party gets the information on the topic predominantly from mass-media and personal web sites, and the second party reads peer-reviewed publications and monographs. That is a very common problem in Wikipedia. Paul Siebert (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert:, you can edit and amend this article for NPOV and SYNTH. This is by no means nearly enough to warrant an AfD, that is only for much more significantly problematic articles that infrige on Wikipedia's policy. "I looked through some forums where the AfD is being discussed, and the posts of some supporters of this article are quite pro-Nazi or antisemitic." why should that matter what Reddit, 4chan and Alt-right news outlets have to say on the topic? They cannot use Wikipedia to thwart the results, and this page is semi-protected as of writing. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSuperstar77: Just check the article's talk page history: I am trying to achieve a consensus about fixing the article's problems during last 12 years. I was in the middle of DRN when this AdF had started. I was proposing to postpone this AfD, because I had a hope that that article could be saved. I didn't suppoirt deletion during last AfD. What other evidences are needed to show that I did my best to fix the article???!
However, I am getting more and more evidences that the article's supporters do not want any changes, and they resist to any attempts to fix it. I am not going to tolerate this POV-garbage for 11 more years, and, as the whole history of my edits demonstrate, I have very serious reasons for that. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioSuperstar77: It seems you have ignored my warning: you accused a big group of user of disruptive behaviour and compared them to Nazi. That is a personal attack. I am asking for the second time: please remove this your statement. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was raising awareness about political POV on Wikipedia by pointing the extremist views of some, particularly of the Authoritarian kind, which demonstrably seems to be the cause of this AfD (See post below mine for reference), however, I don't want to fight with you over a worthless one off comment. I am keeping the remainder of the comment particularly commenting on the political inclinaison of this AfD. At the very least you have good intentions, so my comment never concerned you in the first place. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Paul Siebert (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE DELETE As seen by the hard-right media organisations pushing and marshalling the Keep case at the top of this page, and the contributions of anti-communist extremists like the “vote” above mine, this article is an ideological screed with no encyclopaedic value.
Wikipedia already defaults to the US/NATO version of geopolitics in almost every instance, and has been become a tool of misinformation used by far-right political forces in Latin America against their opponents (note the existence of the “Bolivarian propaganda” article.
This article conveys no useful information which assists users in learning about or interpreting global history in a global context. It exists purely to advance extremist anti-communist narratives against political alternatives which have been embraced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world. At the worst, this article is a danger to global peace and a potential aid to genocidal acts such as those whipped up by US-induced anti-communist propaganda in Indonesia. It’s not even a question – DELETE.
DublinDilettante (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DublinDilettante: The person you are referring to above as an "anti-communist extremist" is a social democrat, meaning they have some communistic ideals. "Wikipedia already defaults to the US/NATO version of geopolitics in almost every instance", citation needed. "and has been become a tool of misinformation used by far-right political forces in Latin America against their opponents (note the existence of the “Bolivarian propaganda” article." How is pointing out government propaganda a far-right ideal? "This article conveys no useful information which assists users in learning about or interpreting global history in a global context." Documenting mass killings IS useful information. "It exists purely to advance extremist anti-communist narratives against political alternatives which have been embraced by hundreds of millions of people all over the world." Of course an article about communist mass killings will advance this narrative, just like how the Holocaust article advances anti-nazi rhetoric, but that doesn't mean we should discard either article, as both topics are notable. "At the worst, this article is a danger to global peace and a potential aid to genocidal acts such as those whipped up by US-induced anti-communist propaganda in Indonesia." That is beyond an overreaction. "As seen by the hard-right media organisations pushing and marshalling the Keep case at the top of this page", are you seriously suggesting that we should delete this article just to OWN the right-wing media? Ironically, your comment is more of an ideological screed than the article you are complaining about. X-Editor (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP: The only concern for wikipedia should be POLICY, rules and logic behind what we do not feelings. Is the subject of this article notable per WP:N Yes. "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time, and are not outside the scope of Wikipedia. We consider evidence from reliable and independent sources to gauge this attention. " The very controversy and attention to this page is itself proof of how notable this is. The sources listed on the page are also proof the subject is notable. As for WP:NPOV concerns that means you edit the article to make it NPOV.--Hfarmer (talk) 19:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: As far as I can tell from wading through the discussion, the argument here is that the title does not form an appropriate category for historical enquiry. However, this is an encyclopedia, and its job is to summarise scholarship in a rational manner, and there is no reason that topics historians do not normally analyse as a whole cannot be treated together. As for those who argue the entire subject is propaganda, I can only suggest restricting their accounts at the first opprtunity. I will not be replying to this post; please do not attempt to discuss this with me here or elsewhere. Calum (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : The article is widely sourced and notable. If it bothers you, you can improve it by adding more information and sources. --Æpherys (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clearly notable topic. It isn't a synthesis because there are many sources which explicitly discuss this as a single topic. Concerns about neutrality of the article as written may be valid, but that should be handled on the talk page and through careful editing. None of the neutrality concerns are remotely serious enough to justify a deletion with a complete recreation as is sometimes done with an article with neutrality isssues. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Stop left and woke censorship. --Vivaelcelta (talk • contributions) 21:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, political mudslinging to the side, it is inarguably a topic that has been discussed in-depth in three reliable sources. And that's what matters. — J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 21:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's enough scholar research on the topic for WP:SYNTH to not apply in this case. --NoonIcarus (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Extensively sourced article on a signficant topic. Article content disputes should be dealt with by normal processes, not article deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Suprised that this made it to Afd. It seems the very definition of communism is being negated. It is absolutely notable. scope_creepTalk 00:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deletion is not cleanup and this is clearly a notable topic. Crossroads -talk- 01:48, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep At this point all possible arguments have been repeated many times, and not much would be gained by rehashing them. Res ipsa loquitur. Atchom (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is genuinely no reason to delete this article. It is wonderfully useful and it was made correctly in accordance with Wikipedia. Keep it. Helpfulwikieditoryay (talk) 03:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Who wants to get rid of it? The Communists and their allies? Think of all the people who have died under Stalin, Mao, and others. I think I know how they would vote. We should not allow the bad people to re-write or erase history. It might become more and more difficult for some people associated with wikipedia to resist such pressure in the future. Either parts of the article are good or not? All articles can be improved. Durindaljb (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stout Keep and Bailey Notable topic well sourced. This 4th nom is currently ranked the largest AfD in Wikipedia history by page size. Positions are entrenched, watchers at the gates are legion, hard to see there ever being consensus for delete in the near to medium term. -- GreenC 05:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are clearly citations to support this article existence, I am a very strong leftist, however there is however no potential justification for deletion when this article very clearly meets the notability guidlines 10 fold, with thousands of books bring written about the matter. The consensus of this article has remained the same, since the fourth deletion request. Des Vallee (talk) 06:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page was mentioned in the Signpost and is now almost half a million bytes long, perhaps most of the issues with this article should be discussed on its talk page before another nomination occurs. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:05, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm honestly tempted to vote Delete not only because of the Synth issues, but the clear canvassing. Shame on so many editors in this discussion and shame on the trash 4channers, Wikipediocracy people, and even people in the media for their canvassing nonsense over this thread. But there's obviously no point in voting by now, this AfD should be thrown in the trash. The bias in the above editors is so plain. This isn't even a Keep result, it's a nonsense frameshift mutation. So, again, just shame on you all for just being such poor Wikipedia editors. SilverserenC 08:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I found out about it, at WPANI. Nobody canvassed me. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody accuses you in being canvassed but we have !voters whose first edit this year was on this page.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:13, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete and split It would be more suitable to include many of these events under lists which are more appropriate. The information should be moved to specific discussions about specific countries/regimes. Treating them all as a monolith does have serious issues. I also think that the fact we have this but not mass killings under capitalist regimes is pretty telling. Regardless, I hope that editors here are voting not because of a knee-jerk reaction to communism as a scare word or some propaganda they've been told. However, given such a controversial article, I doubt we as a community are putting our best foot forward here. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 11:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Genuinely, I do support the creation of an article focusing on the mass killings under Capitalism. There are likely info that can be gleaned from reputable sources on the subject. MarioSuperstar77 (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We do have Mass killings under anti-communist regimes. —Nug (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deleting the article will disrespect the victims of communism and encourage communists to continue their crimes. Urabura (talk) 12:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGEST POSSIBLE KEEP It is an insufficient argument to vouch for deletion on the basis of supposed seperation of events when wikipedia clearly covers other ideologies with varied, seperate expressions but undoubtedly united doctrines. To call the coverage of communism's dark past bias is no different than the kind of blind defensiveness being pushed by far-rightists in schools seeking to whitewash history[1]. This isn't justifiable and frankly makes me feel Larry Sanger was frighteningly correct about where this site has come[2]. --MrPreamble (talk) 13:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/whitewashing-civil-war-history-for-young-minds/2015/07/06/1168226c-2415-11e5-b77f-eb13a215f593_story.html
  2. ^ https://unherd.com/thepost/wikipedia-co-founder-i-no-longer-trust-the-website-i-created/
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.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Woodpecker (1941 film)

[edit]
Woody Woodpecker (1941 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another Woody Woodpecker cartoon article that fails NFILM, and GNG. From a before search, I could not find a single reliable source with significant coverage of this short. No indications of notability. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that mean it passes GNG, exactly? This feels like a drive-by vote without actually considering if sources exist that cover the short. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NFSOURCES The film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of their career." Even though Woody is not a "person", how can the film debut of a notable fictional character not be considered 'significant' and 'a major part of their career'? DonaldD23 talk to me 19:15, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable for being film premiere of iconic Woody Woodpecker and Andy Panda characters and is discussed in detail in The Encyclopedia of Animated Cartoons and Of Mice and Magic as well as [cartoonresearch]. Wk3v78k23tnsa (talk) 19:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The one cartoon (the debut episode) which deserves to be an auto-keep among this #itsnotlooneytunesdeletethemall rash of Woody noms. You have time to delete, you have time to find sources. Nate • (chatter) 02:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I will have to vote keep per historical notability. According to this source - "In 1982, Lantz donated 17 artifacts to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of American History, among them a wooden model of Woody Woodpecker and a storyboard from the character’s 1941 debut." So, unlike the other shorts, a storyboard from this cartoon is in a notable museum. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as an obvious case of WP:SNOW - Per above; finding specific sources may take some additional effort because of the notability of the eponymous character, but others have already demonstrated their existence.
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.
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. ✗plicit 14:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajjampur Rangaiah Ghanashyam

[edit]
Ajjampur Rangaiah Ghanashyam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Badly sourced page about an ambassador with smallish credentials and lack of independent sources, mixed with some spam-looking information about his pet project for holistic growth in children. Geschichte (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria–Uruguay relations

[edit]
Nigeria–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was going to notability-tag this, but it has been tagged ever since the article was created in 2014. The relations between the countries does not seem to amount to much, although some trade exists. Geschichte (talk) 12:42, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 09:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trade unions in Vatican City

[edit]
Trade unions in Vatican City (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Effectively a duplicate of Association of Vatican Lay Workers. Merge and redirect as a WP:FORK. Mako001 (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:31, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kiirya Beats

[edit]
Kiirya Beats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:MUSICBIO FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 11:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Author has added more sources since nomination, which require further analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I appreciate that this has been re-listed after references were added. It is not the job of the editor re-listing to check the references, and it was correct to re-list because the changes has been made. I have taken the opportunity to check them. My opinion is that they add nothing to the article, nor to the notability of the subject. It makes it more clear that this is WP:ADMASQ and confirms that the nomination was correct and reasonable FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 12:40, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese in Belgium

[edit]
Maltese in Belgium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per this, this and this AFD, these is no need for this page. The page fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING in that it's not encyclopedic with stubs about every possible diaspora group in the world. No relations page to merge to. Geschichte (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 draftify. I find the two "keep" contributors entirely unpersuasive, relative to the nomination and 力's comments. Daniel (talk) 02:19, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Holics (comedian)

[edit]
Holics (comedian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP of a young comedian sourced to listicles and passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 08:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:20, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notable but page requires improvement. LondonIP (talk) 19:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify draft instead of delete so the above voters can improve the article if they can. It's one thing to say he's notable, it's another to demonstrate it. That hasn't been done. The references in the article do not demonstrate notability. The best reference I see is the Pulse Ghana one, and A young, dynamic rising gem, Holics is an expert in lampooning and creating content that users can easily relate to. He takes advantage of current trends and creates witty content out of it. is the entirety of the text about him. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:53, 1 December 2021 (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.
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 merge to India–Libya relations. Daniel (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of India, Tripoli

[edit]
Embassy of India, Tripoli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. This embassy does not even exist, with the Indian embassy in Tunisia accredited to Libya. Article says embassy is only "temporarily" relocated, but that was announced in 2013. LibStar (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:26, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Fails WP:GNG.

Thank you everyone for participating and assuming good faith! If you disagree with this closure, please take your concerns to Deletion Review prior to my talk page. Thanks again and happy holidays! Missvain (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

James Chapman (journalist)

[edit]
James Chapman (journalist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article appears to be full of PR and contains nothing (arguably perhaps one thing) notable. There is a very full explanation of the reasons for the deletion proposal at the Talk page of the article. There has been an attempt to edit all the errors but these keep being put back immediately, including broken links and without references. It may be that an admin will feel the page should be put up for improvement instead of deletion, but it certainly seems to need an admin to take a view through their more experienced perspective. Emmentalist (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is titled 'journalist' but the subject is no longer a journalist, according to the article itself. It is not clear that he a PR person either (as the article says he is); the article in fact refers only to a period of a few weeks in 2017 when the subject worked at a PR company. The article includes broken links, primary sources, material put there by the subject (see edit history) and PR puff. The appointments referred to almost all lasted only a few months (government, Bell Pottinger). Some never took place at all (Guardian). There is even a reference to two tweets proposing a new political party which apparently never went any further. There is no notability at all.

At the edit history it's clear that much of the article does indeed appear to have been written by the subject of the article (jameschapman1). The subject seems to have been correcting and adding to edits made by someone else on his behalf (see the previous edits which leave gaps to be filled in). Emmentalist (talk) 08:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I now see the edits by the subject of the article took place in July 2017, during the few months the article says he worked in PR. The wikipedia article on the relevant company, Bell Pottinger, notes that it went bankrupt a few weeks later owing to a controversy about its clients and work. One things the company is criticised for is making conflict-of-interest edits on Wikipedia. The Jameschapman1 edits seem to show a to and fro between Chapman and another member of staff at Bell Pottinger.

For interest, too, a simple search on the author of the GQ article which praised Chapman's PR status shows that he seems to have worked with Chapman until shortly beforehand, was sacked by GQ for well-publicised reasons immediately afterwards and is no longer a journalist either. As said above, while some GQ article may be acceptable as sources, many are not. This seems to belong to the latter category. Emmentalist (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll make this my last comment, unless someone else comes in. I've noticed that the creator of this page @dinosaursloveexistence created another page 39 minutes earlier with all the same PR puff shortcomings: Tom Alexander. A couple of days later, there's another: Lynn Barton. I might be wrong here, but I've not exactly looked hard (just a few edits either side of one (in 2016) out of many thousands over the years. They look to me like they've been produced professionally, but to minimum spec, for otherwise unknown clients. I know there's a mechanism for enabling people to be paid for putting up Wikipedia content, but I imagine there has to be fun acknowledgement (very much in learning mode, here). So I'm suspecting COI at this point. I've flagged the other two pages for speedy delete. Again, I might be wrong, but maybe I don't wanna be right.

Finally, finally, there seems to be an odd pattern of editing with this article. @PhillipCross may be a COI editor, @brownhairedgirl makes 1000 edits per day and never takes a break according to her user contribution history. I'm not suggesting she'd doing something wrong, but it seems pretty notable. The address doesn't look like a bot. I feel like I've stumbled across a series of interlinking PR puff articles which extend from the same people and phenomenon. Again, all said with respect and I accept I may be wrong. Any corrections or advice most welcome. Emmentalist (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @力 The article you flag is a good example of why I put the wiki article up for deletion. The Independent is an online newspaper now which contains many articles of PR puffery. As a source, Wikipedia editors have to be discriminating. The story you flag, for example, has the appearance of a person moving from one important job to another. You'll see, however, that it says the first job came 'at the height of' a campaign. That's because the subject was only in the job for a couple of months, according to the WP article's own timeline. Moreover, you'll see it refers to an appointment which is upcoming, not yet extant. In fact, the subject was only in that second job for a couple of months too. In the article, the subject is referred to as a PR professional, but again according to the article, he was at this third job, Bell Pottinger PR agency, for only a couple of months too. And that was in 2017. What you have there is a series of entirely non-notable appointments presented through the lens of the PR agency where the subject worked (very briefly) at the point the substantive content of article was inserted mainly by the subject himself. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 13:16, 1 December 2021 (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.
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. Once I discard a number of !votes which are policy-inferior, if not policy-deficient altogether, this debate is closer than it may appear on the face of it. Deliberately closing as 'no consensus' as this can be renominated in the near future, with this outcome not being prejudicial to that occurring. Daniel (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational Health Science (journal)

[edit]
Occupational Health Science (journal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. Article creation likely WP:TOOSOON." Article de-PRODded because article creator object (on article talk page). However, none of the arguments given are policy-based and PROD reason still stands. Hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The journal Occupational Health Science (OHES) should not be deleted. This peer-reviewed journal has been in existence for five years. Recently administrators at the American Psychological Association's PsycInfo indexing group decided to include in this preeminent psychology index articles the journal publishes. It took a couple of years for the journal to be recognized by APA's PsycInfo, and now it is. OHES has become an important outlet for papers associated with the field of occupational health psychology (OHP). The other main OHP outlets are Work & Stress and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. OHES covers work-related physical and mental health, particularly in relation to psychosocial working conditions. OHES also covers job stress, workplace safety, and accidents. From the editor-in-chief through to the associate edtors and the editorial board, the figures who shape the journal are researchers with expertise in working conditions, job stress, safety, burnout, work-related, financial strain, etc.
Here some examples of articles that were recently accepted for publication: Musculoskeletal Health and Perceived Work Ability in a Manufacturing Workforce; Effects of Social and Occupational Stress, and Physical Strain on Suicidal Ideation Among Law Enforcement Officers; Job Insecurity during an Economic Crisis: the Psychological Consequences of Widespread Corporate Cost-Cutting Announcements. Respected researchers are the authors. The journal has become too notable to be threatened with deletion. Iss246 (talk) 19:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Eyeballing citation numbers in google scholar, it appears to fulfill criteria 2 of WP:NJOURNALS in that there are a lot of articles getting cited in double figures. h-index is for authors, not for journals. I can't find an impact factor rating for the journal, which is what we'd really need.OsFish (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The creation of a page dedicated to the journal Occupational Health Science is important. The journal is now well-indexed (e.g., in PsycINFO). The publisher is a highly recognized scientific publisher. The Editor-in-Chief is a remarkable occupational health researcher. Many great figures of occupational health science have already published articles there. The journal applies high standards for research quality, which is a key concern for OHP researchers and practitioners. Ohpres (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC) Note that this editor was canvassed on their talk page.[reply]
  • Comment There should be a defacto rule for all major scientific journals to be included in the articlespace, as I believe there is one. I don't see any issues with this subject being included in the articlespace. Multi7001 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: AS a close will probably be done soon, a few final remarks. To start with, this debate suffered from significant canvassing. However, that can be safely ignored, because the "keep" !votes of these editors were not policy-based but obvious WP:ILIKEIT. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so whether or not authors/editors/publishers are notable is moot. Also irrelevant is our personal evaluation of the quality of the journal. To conclude that it is high quality, we need independent sources and PsycINFO is not the kind of selective database that NJournals requires. In addition, Headbomb has clearly shown that a single researcher with the citation record of this whole journal would not be judged to meet WP:ACADEMIC. Finally, Multi7001 seems to argue that we should throw away all notions of notability "for all major scientific journals", where apparently it is left to editor discretion to judge what is "major" or not. In short, the only policy-based arguments come from Headbomb, who proposes merging to the article on the society, which I think is an acceptable solution. --Randykitty (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Randykitty, there actually is a defacto rule for very few types of subjects deemed as authority figures based on common knowledge, such as academic and scientific entities. In this regard, the academic journal is published by Springer and may fall under similar regard; as for example with these two journals: Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology and Child Psychiatry & Human Development. In my opinion, the subject should have its own page in the articlespace and not per any conflicts with notability. Multi7001 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 09:23, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Toussaint

[edit]
Alex Toussaint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet notability criteria for WP:NCYCLING and primarily appears to be a paid brand influencer. Article is structured as a resume and lacks encyclopedic content/value. Headphase (talk) 05:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, he isn't a cyclist at all, he's an instructor for exercise classes. I still don't think he's notable; I just think he's a non-notable fitness instructor rather than a non-notable cyclist. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:37, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 leaning keep. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noord-Nederlandse Golf & Country Club

[edit]
Noord-Nederlandse Golf & Country Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable golf/country club. The article is unsourced and makes no serious claim of notability (and neither does the nlwiki version, even though it's longer). I can't find any significant coverage on it, just a few mentions in local media. Lennart97 (talk) 14:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: I found out that the Dutch-language parallel is a spinoff of a broader article. We only had the narrow spinoff, which was unfortunate. A vast amount of books and articles have been written about this subject or contain significant coverage of the subject. I estimate that there are some 100 sources with independent, significant coverage. Could be more. Already there are 817 references in the article, including in important national, regional, and specialized media. Of course, per WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST everyone is in charge of their own research. Based on my research this should be kept and should not have been nominated. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have split the article as I believe we have sufficient content and references for both the parent and spinoff. Still tweaking both a bit. Beyond meeting the WP:GNG with flying colors, NNG&CC also meets WP:GEOFEAT #1 and #2, WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:CLUB #1. gidonb (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 per WP:SNOW. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Higher education accreditation

[edit]
Higher education accreditation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deprodded as "an important topic that needs to be addressed, not deleted or ignored". Almost none of the sources in the article actually use the term "higher education accreditation", and a search on GBooks and GScholar turned up only false positives. Definite WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, possible WP:FRINGE. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is an indisputably notable topic. I fear that the nominator has made one or more mistakes in their search for sources because they are legion. When I search Google Scholar for "higher education accreditation," for example, I get over 15,000 hits and I'm not seeing any false positives in the first several pages of results. I even get results on just the very first page that discuss higher education accreditation in multiple countries e.g., the U.S., Philippines, Saudi Arabia. The article is in pretty poor shape and I have no objections to someone taking a hatchet to it to begin to force it into shape. But it's completely untrue that this is original research, synthesis, or fringe. ElKevbo (talk) 06:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Higher education accreditation is something dealt with in multiple articles including the 6 regional accrediation organizations in the US.Naraht (talk) 06:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, strongly. We have 30+ pages in Category:Higher education accreditation, most of which are notable in their own right. The general topic is certainly notable. I'd suggest the nominator consider withdrawing this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 07:58, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Looking at the several links, including GBooks, the nomination statement is contrary to reality. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is a notable (not to mention important) topic. Even when I badly misspell all of the words to see if that explains the nominator's lack of results, I get 103 million results on Google,772 thousand results in Google Scholar, and page after page of results in Google Books. Yes, the article is long and somewhat disjointed, but that is due to the fact that nearly every nation in the world has some sort of higher education accreditation, and because of differences in the processes, it is almost impossible to generalize about what it means and how it is done. We don't delete articles about notable topics because the topic is a complicated one that is difficult to write about. PS - It is difficult for me to accept the allegation of "fringe theory" as anything other than a joke. Orlady (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Many books have been written on this topic, as a quick search on Google books demonstrates – it's unarguably notable. Everything I'm seeing there is on this topic, not false positives. It might be clearer if the page had a different name: much discussion in expert literature of what is commonly called "accreditation" (under the influence of the US system) uses the term "quality assurance", which is a more technically correct umbrella term as applied to many higher education systems. But that's a different discussion. Robminchin (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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. While this had low participation, I find the nominator exceptionally persuasive. Daniel (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shimelba massacres

[edit]
Shimelba massacres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete as non-notable and not verifiable. Fails WP:NEVENT. This article was part of a series of over 100 articles created as WP:REFSPAM for a self-published source (the Atlas) by an editor now under sockpuppet investigation. I stripped unnecessary WP:COATRACK content from this article as most of the citations from the article didn't even mention Shimelba or only mentioned it in passing and didn't verify content. The remaining citations (and I read all of them) don't support the idea that there was a massacre. The citations, and others I found,[1][2] support that Shimelba was a refugee camp and most of the refugees fled the area. There is no indication from reliable sources that a massacre took place. The "Atlas" source is self-published, doesn't discuss how it came up with its victim list (which is added in an appendix without discussion or cross reference), and even its authors claim to be constantly updating its victim list and that the list may contain duplicates (unreliable source). See discussion at a previous AfD on the subject of the 100 articles. Delete as failing NEVENT. Platonk (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The creator Rastakwere again combines and misuses sources. AFP, Eritrea Hub and Norwegian Refugee Council doesn't mentions the claimed events. The claimed events relies solely on the self published and unreliable Atlas(Researchgate) source. Also see previous AFD. This is not the last AFD regarding articles created by this user, more AFD will follow in batches. Dawit S Gondaria (talk) 21:50, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Ethiopia: Hunger and disease rife among displaced as aid workers gain access to new parts of Tigray". Norwegian Refugee Council. 18 March 2021. NRC emergency teams were the first to visit the previously destroyed Hitsats and Shimelba refugee camps in Tigray this week. Prior to the conflict, the camps hosted close to 33,000 Eritrean refugees, and who have either had to flee to safer locations, relocated to safe areas or forced to go back to their country. While NRC teams did not find any refugees, there were 3,000 internally displaced people that fled from Western Tigray who have taken refuge in the shelters meant for refugees in Shimelba camp. This highlights how the conflict continues to displace people in multiple locations.
  2. ^ Eritrae Focus and Oslo Analytica. "The Tigray War & Regional Implications, November 2020 to June 2021" (PDF). Eritraen Satelite TV. In late November, Eritrean troops specifically were reported to have killed a number of refugees at Shimelba, possibly as those refugees had attempted to flee (reports varied considerably, ranging from seven to 100 victims). But for the most part, no broad, deliberate massacre of camp residents appeared – in contrast to deliberate massacres that were befalling Tigrayans and other populations elsewhere.
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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of the United Kingdom, Quito

[edit]
Embassy of the United Kingdom, Quito (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Embassies are not inherently notable. All this article does is confirm the embassy exists. LibStar (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Jenkins (fitness trainer)

[edit]
Mark Jenkins (fitness trainer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Borderline WP:G11 profile of a personal trainer. Not seeing sufficient coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:BASIC. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:11, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 09:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Taylor

[edit]
Zara Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP of an actress and musician, with no reliably sourced claim to passing either WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSIC. Her apparent notability claim as a musician is a song that charted on Beatport, but that's a single-vendor WP:BADCHART that does not pass NMUSIC #2 (which requires national charts on the order of Billboard) -- and as an actress her only notability claim is supporting and bit parts, which is also not an automatic notability freebie in the absence of reliably sourced evidence of the significance of at least some of her performances, such as notable acting awards and/or the reception of media coverage about her. But this is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even on a ProQuest search for older sourcing that might not have Googled all I get is nine glancing namechecks of her existence in event calendar listings and other sources that aren't about her. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to pass GNG on the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted via WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:41, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Off-road park

[edit]
Off-road park (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems entirely pointless, quite different from its initial iteration, article name doesn't match the name in the first sentence, full of style errors, etc. Hardly seems worth retaining, to me. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 02:55, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North McNary, Washington

[edit]
North McNary, Washington (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another case where the sources used in the article state flat out that this was something other than a "community". The topos, aerials, and text of the NP historical site are quite clear: it was a spot of the railroad where a siding split off to receive supplies for building the dam. There's no sign of a town here even as early as the mid 1950s, so at most there might have been a work camp which went away as soon as the dam was completed. Clearly not a notable location. Mangoe (talk) 02:12, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 21:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heleni Polichronatou

[edit]
Heleni Polichronatou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet WP:NARTIST. I can not find any reliable sources to show notability. The one reference in the article is to her dissertation. I can not find any references to exhibits. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - I translated her name into Greek, Ελένη Πολυχρονάτου, and am searching for citations and running them thru Google Translate to see if they are SIGCOV. I found some biographical info on her here [34], a full page review of her work here [35], a two page article here [36], a paragraph mention here [37], a multiple page article here [38], 1/2 page newspaper review here [39], another news review here [40], another review here [41]. Unfortunately, all these scanned pdfs are on her website, and searching the web for the originals is a task too large for a non-fluent editor. Perhaps an editor fluent in Greek could help. Nevertheless, it is pretty clear to me she meets WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read Greek and will see what I can do with those sources Eritha (talk) 08:19, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) LibStar (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sibu Heritage Centre

[edit]
Sibu Heritage Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ORG. Coverage merely confirms it exists or certain events were held there. LibStar (talk) 01:54, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. ✗plicit 02:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Philosophical Enquiry

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
International Society for Philosophical Enquiry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no sign of WP:SIGCOV. JBchrch talk 01:52, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 02:56, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De Verley

[edit]
De Verley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced permastub that can't be turned into a dab because there's nothing to disambiguate. I would redirect to Varley but there's no one named "de Verley" on that page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:37, 25 November 2021 (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.
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. Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Immigrants in California

[edit]
The Life of Immigrants in California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to consist almost entirely of original research based on primary sources and government documents. Salimfadhley (talk) 00:45, 25 November 2021 (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.
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 Johnson v. Monsanto Co.. Clear consensus exists below not to retain, selecting this option out of the two presented (other being 'delete'). Daniel (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dewayne "Lee" Johnson

[edit]
Dewayne "Lee" Johnson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a WP:COATRACK for a court case rather than about the BLP subject. Pretty clear cut WP:BLP1E deletion as the same content already exists at the main articles on glyphosate, etc. per *WP:BIO1E, so there isn't content to merge, and this isn't a useful redirect. The person themself isn't notable outside of involvement in the case, and the court case information is handled at:

While the stuff going on with Roundup/glyphosate gets plenty of coverage, this would be a person to remember WP:INHERIT with too. Pretty much all descriptions are tied directly to the court case rather than in-depth coverage about the person themself outside of that one instance. KoA (talk) 00:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E, duplicative, a coatrack for the most controversial/criticizing parts of the glyphosate article. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 05:26, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KoA and Shibbolethink: I don’t get how WP:BLP1E or WP:COATRACK are relevant here. BLP1E says we avoid having articles on someone known only for one event, unless they, like John Hinckley Jr., have a "substantial and well documented" role in a significant event, like Hinckley did in the Attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. Johnson's role in the landmark case against Monsanto is likewise quite substantial and well documented. Instead of this AfD, we should be working together to write Dewayne Johnson v. Monsanto Company to feature in List of landmark court decisions in the United States, and perhaps we will even get it passed as a WP:GOOD article one day. It was a landmark case and Bayer/Monsanto have reportedly put aside $16B to "fight and settle" with thousands of other plaintiffs, and they are reportedly also discontinuing the Roundup product in its current form. LondonIP (talk) 18:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That court case article should have been written in lieu of this one. I would support moving the contents of this article to a newly created court case article. But I would not support leaving this man a standalone article as it is doubtless that he does not meet WP:BIO. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:45, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will write the court case article but I started with this BLP because I was drawn in by the travesty of his story. The Guardian source I just added clearly shows he meets BIO and I've explained above that WP:BLP1E isn't relevant here. LondonIP (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Guardian source doesn't really add anything for notability beyond what we're already discussing. When it comes to the actual subject of the article, Johnson, it's still all centered on his glyphosate court case as one event, not him as a BLP as most of the notability around the events are tied to glyphosate or some of the pseudoscience going on that is detailed in the articles already. WP:INHERIT plays a large role or the spirit of WP:COATRACK when it comes to trying to impute notability like that.
I already outlined WP:BLP1E's application above, but the bullets listed there are very clear:
  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. No serious debate that this isn't the case.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. No serious debate here either. They're otherwise just a groundskeeper.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented.. In this case, the individual's role is not particularly substantial, and definitely not something like the listed example of Hinckley/Reagan's assassin. The next sentence of the policy illustrates that in saying there needs to be persistent coverage in sources. Instead, coverage of Johnson himself on a WP:N fashion is pretty limited, especially as news sources have moved on to other cases. Johnson's event was more of a flash in the pan that has blended into the other court cases where one could arguably interchange other plaintiffs in place of Johnson. There's nothing saying that his involvement was particularly unique.
That policy then gives even more guidance by sending folks to the WP:1E guideline. The general rule is to cover the event, not the person. That was already how this was done at relevant glyphosate articles before you created this article. Above, you described examples of someone in a large event that also had a significant role. Instead, the event is more about the court case, what the lawfirm was doing, and how those ignored what the science says. Johnson doesn't really rise to that level of a major player in the wider controversy.
When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate. In this case, a redirect doesn't really work because we have so many articles like I mentioned above. That's because Johnson's court case is just one event among many related to the glyphosate & cancer claims, so that is why they are housed at the glyphosate articles, etc. to maintain WP:NPOV. I wouldn't delve into that too much for this AfD except that trying to split out Johnson as a BLP embellishes his significance in the wider context of what was going on, and you can't easily disentangle that. This AfD is focused on Johnson as a BLP rather than the court cases, so when you account for all of that, you're not really left with anything that fits the spirit of our guidance on 1 event people.
The last part of the guideline, Editors are advised to be aware of issues of weight and to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people., is why I have been concerned about this page's creation and POVFORK issues like to avoiding mention of the scientific viewpoint needed for DUE and WP:FRINGE. Instead, if someone really just wants to expand content on the subject, Monsanto_legal_cases#RoundUp or Glyphosate#Legal_cases would be the best starting points to keep everything in context and carefully develop content elsewhere from there. That's when a true split could be considered for possibly Johnson's court case, but that's very different than the subject of this AfD, Johnson himself. KoA (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What the Guardian profile adds to this BLP is an RS that one would normally require to meet WP:NBIO, and demonstrates also it is not a WP:BLP1E/1, as it describes the legal precedent Johnson’s case set and his impact on the Roundup product and Glyphosate-based herbicides overall litigation and regulation issues. It's also not a WP:BLP1E/2, as Johnon is mentioned in reports on the cases of other plaintiffs, like the Pilliods' vs Monsanto, and Hardeman vs Monsanto, and is highly likely to be mentioned in the many thousands of other cases in the courts. As to WP:BLP1E/3, the Johnson case is reportedly so significant that Bayer/Monsanto is not appealing it, and is instead settling at a cost of $16B, and removing Glyphosate from its Roundup product.
Please be aware that there is a very long thread on Village Pump about the use of the WP:FRINGE guideline as an justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Since this article is about an individual who had significant exposure, it clearly doesn’t classify as pseudoscience, even according to your own sources. For example, the UK Cancer Research source you added here makes a clear distinction between light and heavy exposure. I don't see how WP:FRINGE is at all relevant here. LondonIP (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those comments are being very loose with what sources actually focus on. The first paragraph is stretching a lot. The source you mention doesn't get into anything of depth related to Johnson specifically. You're confounding events unrelated to Johnson himself or not part of his court case event either. I already mentioned how WP:1E cautions against so much of what you are saying in comments here, but you need to be more careful about embellishing it cautions against to try to claim BLP notability.
For the second, this is not a forum to try to insinuate Johnson's cancer was caused by glyphosate or cherrypick what the science says in our articles. There is no good evidence to make such a general claim for low exposure, and high exposure rates have poor but heavily discussed data (it's WP:OR anyways for you to impute that over to Johnson specifically). More on the background below if it's of interest to others, but there's been way too much shooting from the hip here already on Johnson, the court case, and the science in terms of WP:BLUDGEON while trying to respond to what's specifically relevant to this AfD. Trying to deal with the issues arising from that glossing over is getting this AFD too long already. KoA (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On WP:FRINGE and scientific claims
For a quick core summary from the glyphosate articles for those uninvolved: The consensus among national pesticide regulatory agencies and scientific organizations is that labeled uses of glyphosate have demonstrated no evidence of human carcinogenicity.[9] Organizations such as the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues and the European Commission, Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, and the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment[10] have concluded that there is no evidence that glyphosate poses a carcinogenic or genotoxic risk to humans. Only one outlier organization has tried to claim otherwise[42][43], the IARC, a sub-branch of the WHO, and was heavily criticized for their methodology. You're already getting into fringe territory when a court ignores the science so much, but it's also a common anti-GMO talking point that glyphosate cancers cancer and other maladies. Both of those on their own are common WP:FRINGE issues. Then you get into issues where the WHO assessment involved someone who as paid by a lawfirm involved in such litigation.[44] It's just a tangled web where the science was put to the wayside. KoA (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't want to respond to my charitable interpretation of WP:BLP1E. The collapsed section above would have been good in response to my question of WP:DUE on the subject talk page. I guess we will have to continue that discussion on the court case page. LondonIP (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_November_25&oldid=1058503432"