Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourgism

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 of the debate was KEEP. As there was only one "delete" vote, I feel it is safe to keep this. Anyone wanting to merge or redirect this can do so later. — JIP | Talk 18:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourgism

del nonnotable. Sheesh! What next? Zetkinism? John"Jack"SilasReedism? Petty differences in opinions of some commies hardly warrant separate article. May well be merged into Council Communism. mikka (t) 01:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not sure about the "non-notable". If they identify themsleves that way, who are we to say different.--Mpeisenbr 01:27, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep 420 hits is a tad low, but the other sites point to Communism, which means the article is at least accurate. Ac e tic '^Acid 01:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rosa Luxemburg, since it carries her name, is directly connected to her, and (I assume) basically just means a follower of her political beliefs. --Aquillion 01:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rosa Luxemburg. Luxemburg was certainly notable. One person's "petty difference in opinion" is another's life struggle. This is no different than the political differences which have caused schisms in other political parties, just that it's within Marxism. - Sensor 01:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Your remark is good and all, only that I don't think that Luxemburg's was a significant schism. Certainly all people have different opinion, but to warrant an "-izm" one must have at least a notable group of followers or to become notorious: Bushism. mikka (t) 20:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Point taken, which is why I voted merge rather than an outright delete. - Sensor 00:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Rosa Luxemburg. As per above. freshgavin ^TALK 02:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just want to note that the Red Wiki redirects to council communism. --JJay 03:49, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Rosa Luxemburg. Please fix spelling inconsistencies when merging. Logophile 06:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reyk 06:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep short but informative article. "Close to Council Communism, but somtimes different : for example luxemburgists don't reject unions or elections by principle" would be bettered by outlining all differences in a seperate section. Alf ^melmac 10:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Trollderella 16:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect to Council Communism. This is used to describe some currents of Trotskyism - for example the UK Socialist Workers' Party are described (by their opponents) as Luxembourgist. Secretlondon 19:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I may be out of grasp with modern times. Certainly there was not heard of "Luxemburgism" in my best communist times. If you can provide notable references of the usage of the term (which is yet another problem with the article: wikipedia:verifiability), then the article may become valid. mikka (t) 20:52, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rosa Luxemburg and merge any applicable content.--Isotope23 19:51, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Rosa Luxemburg, merge content, less than 500 google hits for the term. ∴ here…♠ 19:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

about the google hits : there are 2 spellings : luxembourgism and luxemburgism, and you may also add luxemburgist...

luxembourgism/421 luxemborgism/40 luxembourgist/170 luxemborgist/40, even worse. ∴ here…♠ 02:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Expandable article. Google may not be the best tool here because Luxembourgism isn't really current. JStor gives 39 hits in their database of academic journals, which isn't bad ([1] — link will only work if you're on a subscribing network). Chick Bowen 02:31, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Chick Bowen. --Kewp (t) 15:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK if you like it, you keep it, but the article is as useless, naive and nonverifiable as it can be. mikka (t) 21:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Then it should be improved. I have now done so, including NPOVing and citation of reliable sources. Chick Bowen 02:22, 24 October 2005 (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.