Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communist propaganda


 * 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. Whilst the merits of each version can be debated, there is no doubt that the sources are available to write an encyclopedic article on this subject. Black Kite 08:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Communist propaganda

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Nominated by  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC). See his rationale somewhat below. `'Míkka>t

Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed below are related to this version. `'Míkka>t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete: The article is a POV-fork. The concept of "propaganda" is conflated with various irrelevant facts and the article constitutes several WP:SYN. The article uses several biased sources like Robert Conquest, David Satter who are well know for anti-communist activities. The Black Book of Communism is a horribly biased and staunch anti-Communist source. Overall the article is full of quotes from some books and opinions of some biased academics, and the western concept of "propaganda" is conflated with different irrelevant political and ideological activities.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Added note: There is a separate section in the article "Use of Marxist ideology". It is ridiculously POV. Marxism is conflated with the concept of "propaganda".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Question to nominator: POV fork of what? It is not fork of agitprop as was mentioned in the article talk page.  "Agitprop" is (or should be) an article about an organization. `'Míkka>t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * POV fork of the article Propaganda. Anything worthy to be mentioned can be included there. And listen to the other concerns addressed here.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: the sources you cite above have been crticized as biased but has also received a widely positive reception in the Western scholarship. They are quite reliable per WP:RS. And I completely agree with Mikka - a POV fork of what? Propaganda? Certainly not, it is just a very valid subarticle. PS. "Western concept of propaganda"? I am pretty sure that the concept was quite well known in the east (and south, and north, for that matter :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Any answer to the concern that Marxism is conflated with the term "propaganda".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 18:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is hardly comprehensive and free of errors. The need to rewrite and expand does not mean we should delete it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, and redir to agitprop, i'm copying a message i left on the article talk page here: "This article should be converted into a redirect to agit-prop. At this point is simply a ranting pov-fork, and I cannot see how any major piece of material of the present state of this article could fit into a encyclopedia. It is remarkable that there is an article titled 'communist propaganda', which hardly decicates a single line to the subject 'communist propaganda' (the correct title of the current material would be some things I don't like about communism). The editors need to understand that 'propaganda' in this case of communism is not to be understood in the connotation of the word propaganda in current Western usage. 'Communist propaganda' was a political methodology of mass communication developed by the Bolshevik Party and the Communist International, which has had a deep impact on mass communications, far outside of the communist movement. It cannot be reduced to 'censorship'." --Soman (talk) 17:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No can do. Agitprop was an organization. Communist propaganda was what Agitprop did. We don't redirect communism to communist party, do we? `'Míkka>t 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, agitprop is a method that happened to be named after a department.-- Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/cleanup/expand, move most of content to Propaganda in the Soviet Union. `'Míkka>t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: You need to justify your "keep" vote. The article has concerns with RS and WP:SYN. Marxism is conflated with the concept of "propaganda". You need to address these issues.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your nomination is misguided. "Cleanup/expand" is the way to address the issues. `'Míkka>t 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you need to explain why in this case. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A good start of an article on an extremely notable subject (!!). Agitprop is something quite different, btw.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A rather bad, amateurish start, beginning with wrong definition (replaced). `'Míkka>t 17:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:GOOGLE is not the way to establish notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 17:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Print, not Google. Try Scholar too. Nuff said.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, except using a term does not make it a subject for an article. Which is why there are many common terms that do not have articles, as I pointed out to you repeatedly on the talkpage. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeep per Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. --Doopdoop (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The nominator has extremely poor research skills. There are quite a few books which specifically discuss communist propaganda from both extremely polarized POVs: communist and anti-Communist. You may start form reading "Communist propaganda techniques" by John C. Clews. Very interesting. `'Míkka>t 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mikka, I will not be the first person to remark that what you lack in civility you frequently do not make up in perspicacity. The title of that 1964 book notwithstanding, it focuses on Soviet techniques, which are, as has been pointed out frequently since then, completely different from other forms of propaganda techniques. If you pride yourself on your research abilities, find something a little less Cold War and that addresses the purported subject directly. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cold war or hot war, it does not matter as long as the source provides facts and examples. As for civility, I see no reason why I can address extremely poor research skills of the nominator. The fact that the article quotes mostly anti-communists is simply because the article is unfinished. There are plenty of communist sources which describe the purpose of communist propaganda. It is just Western people thoroughly dislike them and dismiss as... communist propaganda. As for your challenge ("if you pride yourself...") -- yes, I can proudly say yes I pride myself and I dont fill wikipedia with biased bullshit, nor I censor it on a whim. But you see, I have life too. This is a serious subject. If you look into the talk page of the article, you will see I noticed its weakness way before you all. But I cannot fill all gaps in wikipedia myself, I am very sorry. Keep on making more gaps; it will keep me busy. `'Míkka>t 15:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Mikka. There is an enormous amount of scholarly research on the topic, including plenty of reliable popular books on the subject. This subject meets all Wikipedia criteria. Noroton (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Name two that make it clear that they discuss this subject particularly, as opposed to Soviet propaganda or Chinese propaganda or Comintern propaganda or Stalinist propaganda or Cuban propaganda. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am really surprised. We have whole Category:Communist propaganda which is a part of a bigger Category:Propaganda. Communist propaganda is a notable phenomenon described in thousands publications. I agree with Mikkalai that Propaganda in the Soviet Union should be improved, partly using content of this article, but this has nothing to do with deletion.Biophys (talk) 18:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you suggest taking the category to CfD? Because then your objection will be removed, right? -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. - notable subject and plenty of reliable sources. Ostap 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, name two that make it clear that they discuss this subject particularly, as opposed to Soviet propaganda or Chinese propaganda or Comintern propaganda or Stalinist propaganda or Cuban propaganda. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - I have lived 27 years under communist propaganda and I don't find any word in this article as exaggerated. If there'll be a problem with the AfD I can even contribute to this article with a lot of more samples with proper references supported by quotes by Lenin, but for now it is enough I think. However, some commie lovers may find it as too offensive for their agenda whatever it may be and as POV. For their benefit just a reminder: Someone's POV is not a valid reason to nominate a Wikipedia article with an AfD template. Lack of its notabiity is! greg park avenue (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete/Put any good elements to History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Do I sense some kind of propaganda wit hthis article? This is a serious violation of POV. Propaganda is part of life. It is called advertising, spread of ideas, etc. All the things the article uses to explain why "communist propaganda" is something special is a serious violation of POV. Which of the things that violate POV to mention first? "Use of Marxist ideology"? "Indoctrination of children"? "Propaganda of extermination"? If there is something interesting in this article certainly can be merged to History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. If someone wants to make its WP:POINT there are better ways this kind of articles.-- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Reply. This article is basically a stub and can be significantly expanded. Yes, it shows how Communist propaganda is different from other types of propaganda. You understood this right - the distinct features are "Use of Marxist ideology" for propaganda, and so on. There is nothing new or special about it. For example, Nazi propaganda also has certain distinct features. This is all based on reliable secondary sources, so I do not see any problems. If you think article is POV - add opposite sourced views on the Communist propaganda (e.g. views by Communists, CPSU, and so on.). Communist leaders openly emphasized the importance of their propaganda, which was considered a normal (not charged) term.Biophys (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete POV fork; merge useful material into articles with more definite referents. csloat (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, although I admit I was somewhat disappointed in the article. But allegations of bias are not deletion material.  The general concept of Communist propaganda should in fact be expanded with discussions of material which was claimed by non-Communists in certain circles to be "Communist propaganda"; or Communist plots like fluoridation or the metric system. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Quite clearly POV Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * VERY STRONG KEEP!-- Zer0~Gravity (Roger - Out) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Very nice but here we are discussing not just voting. -- Magioladitis (talk)
 * Comment WP:JUSTAVOTE or WP:NOREASON.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was also disappointed at the Soviet-centric attitude of the article, as well as the tone that made it feel that a "capitalist pig" was writing the article. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of scholarly research on the subject, which allows it to pass notability. POV? Yes, definitely. Is that a reason for deletion? Not in this case, I believe. I wouldn't be against a merge, though, to other articles such as Agitprop.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic, desrves its place in WP. --Hillock65 (talk) 22:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you justify your rationale why you are calling it "notable topic"?  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Subject is not inherently POV and has been the subject of numerous scholarly works. POV issues in the article need to be cleaned up by editing, just like any other article. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge I am shocked to see nobody has mentioned about merging it under - Propaganda?! The Warsaw Pact countries were just one of the sides that used propaganda techniques. Let's face it, we all know that such "practice" was not only used by the "commies". TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are many common features in propagandas of all sorts, and Propaganda article tells precisely about that. The idea of this article was to describe specific features of the "Communist propaganda" - per sources. For example, how is it different from the Nazi propaganda, or US propaganda? There are many publications about it.Biophys (talk) 23:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If there were, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Repeated assertion is not a substitute for citation. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - a notable form of propaganda. I don't think it's a POV fork, as similar articles could be written about Fascist propaganda, American propaganda, British propaganda, and so on; all would be acceptable subjects for articles. Terraxos (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC
 * Yes, but Western propaganda? Covering all aspects of American, British and French propaganda? Sounds ridiculous? Now you get it. Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See what's been done with that bluelink/redirect? That's a model for what has to be done with this one. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notice how we have American propaganda.  Most of the arguments are either IDONTLIKEIT or arguments that can be solved by other means (i.e, NPOV status of current article). Celarnor Talk to me  10:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * See above. Propaganda in the Soviet Union is not up for deletion. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Topic of definite historical importance.&mdash;RJH (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Topic of definite historical importance" - this is a fundumentally flawed argument. This one is WP:SOAP, WP:POV, WP:SYN. Wikipedia has article titled Propaganda in the Soviet Union for the historically important topic. Also feel free to create Propaganda in Cuba after finding some WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep This seems like an historically important article IMO. BigDunc (talk) 16:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT. Hope this has been a help to you.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . Use of strongly anti-communist POV text, complete with quotes. Only the existance of pages titled "Counter-Revolutionary Propaganda", "Anti-Communist propaganda" etc. can justify keeping this page. Srijon (talk) 17:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, just find reliable sources, and I will gladly expand your text with details how people were shot or served 25 years of Gulag for pieces anti-Communist propaganda, such as this one: "Did you hear that now the Party has two wings: left wing and right wing too? -- Yes and I am wondering when it will take off and fly away to the hell." `'Míkka>t 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I really don't understand how can we write something more than what is written in Agitprop and History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ans why can't we just retarget the article in one of these articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your ignorance is not the reason for others to sit on their hands and write nothing. `'Míkka>t 01:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree -- my problem with this article (like its sister page Communist terrorism) is not that the phenomenon doesn't exist (in both cases, it surely does) -- it's that the phrase is not specific and is completely ambiguous. We have much more specific pages that actually describe encyclopedic concepts.  The problem is POV-pushing editors who want to use Wikipedia as a platform to discredit broad political ideologies.  That's really not an appropriate use of this forum, IMHO. csloat (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You have it upside down, colleague. Some ideologies quite successfully shot themselves in the foot way before wikipedia was born, and a purpose of a 'pedia is to document this feat. `'Míkka>t 01:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually I see nothing here explaining that Wikipedia's purpose is to document such perceived foot-shooting, and I see several items here (particularly this and this that explicitly document that this is not Wikipedia's purpose. But I suppose that is the problem we get into when people confuse their point of view with documented reality. csloat (talk) 03:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep notable subject.Does exist, has legacy in former Soviet bloc, especially Russia, Belarus.--Molobo (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is why wikipedia has the article Propaganda in the Soviet Union.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree, but your list is incomplete. Unfortunately, the Communist propaganda is very much alive in all countries. It can also be found in many WP articles. Good users remove such propaganda per WP policies.Biophys (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Find some reliable sources and feel free to create Propaganda in Cuba. Propaganda in a country does not equal to what is here considered as "communist propaganda". The article documents propaganda in some countries, does not address the concept which is the title i.e. "communist propaganda".  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. You are right, and I did precisely that. The books by Conquest and "Black book" (reliable secondary sources) are telling about the "Communism" (including Communist propaganda) in general and discuss Soviet Union only as a specific example.Biophys (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per above. Very notable subject.  Yahel  Guhan  05:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is a plague on Wikipedia of, as csloat puts it, articles titled with weakly-defined referents, which are then used as soapboxes for whatever form of original research people with a bunch of different POVs turn up with a single Google search on the title phrase. This is a notable phrase, but not a notable scholarly subject, because nothing (or vanishingly little) has been written about what is common to propaganda from various communist countries, parties and communist organisations. I suggested on the talkpage using this as we should any such common phrase; replace with a disambiguation page pointing to our various real articles on the subject. Otherwise, it will inevitable turn into another pointlessly crappy page of inept original research of the type that bedevils these battlefield areas, the kind of thing that makes Wikipedia a joke in scholarly circles and much-loved in POV-pushing ones. -- Relata refero (disp.) 11:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are only two POVs on this topic: communist POV and anti-Communist POV. And communists gave plenty of reasons to make their opponent's POV strong. And I see no reasons why an article cannot cover them both while keeping original research out. What the article needs is a good plan and sketch as a foundation. The topic is really vast despite all your bitching. And the very vastness makes it difficult to start; even to locate a reasonably neutral source within the oceans of literature vast majority of which is anti-Communist. And little surprize in the latter fact: communism started as a wonderful idea, but its implementation turned into a dreadful nightmare Karl Marx failed to forsee.   `'Míkka>t 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great example of a false dichotomy. There are not "only two POVs" on this topic.  And, if you read the comment you responded to, you would see that isn't the point being discussed here at all.  The problem is that the phrase is not treated as a serious scholarly topic in itself, not that it isn't used or that the phenomenon doesn't exist.  This isn't at all about whether communism was a "wonderful idea" or a "dreadful implementation" - you can go to the talk page of Communism and have a field day if you want to argue about that.  But if you can only divide the world into pro-communist and anti-communist camps, I suppose I don't expect you to understand any of this. csloat (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great example of red herring. (First, a side remark. Yes, there are all shadows of gray, but there is white and there is black. Unless you have a clear understanding what is white and what is black, you are doomed to write 32,767 articles for all possibe shadows of gray.) Now, to the point. I was talking about you denial of this article, not about how many ideologies and propagandas there are. Now, still further. I cannot cease to be amazed how a personal ignorance is a potent driving force even among apparently otherwise smart people. Yes, the phrase has long been treated and yes, by the two major POVs, whether you like it or not.  `'Míkka>t 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm; what? csloat (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete / split unredeemably vague subject matter. Fully endorse RR's comments above. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 12:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable and important subject, widely discussed, it does/did exist, it's encyclopedic, and there is no other article on this exact topic.  What more can you want in an article?  Sometimes the real thing gets conflated with accusations of something being "communist propaganda", and like any charged subject there's a lot of opinion on the subject.  When an article becomes POV the remedy is to restore balance and neutrality, not to delete the article for being controversial.  Wikidemo (talk) 23:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep, notable topic:
 * 1940 hits in Google books
 * 6790 hits in Google scholar
 * Martintg (talk) 08:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally didn't intend to even see how this was getting on, because I thought I've said enough, but seriously, I wish people would read arguments already raised and attempt to incorporate or refute them. Without that, its not really a helpful contribution to a discussion. -- Relata refero (disp.) 13:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You said above "not a notable scholarly subject", 6790 Google scholar hits says you are wrong, Mr. Refero. Martintg (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 6790 mentions of a particular phrase does not equal 6790 treatments of the phrase as a notable scholarly subject. How many of those mentions actually specifically define the phrase in a scholarly context?  And, more importantly, do those definitions correspond to each other?  I think the phrase is extremely non-specific; this would be a good thing to mention in this article but it doesn't merit its own. csloat (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I searched on the wrong term--a somewhat narrower term, which does have a narrower focus, just as Rr says, and I demonstrate below. I repeated it on "communist propaganda" -- the exact phrase finds 797 books the subject heading "Propaganda, communist" has 3458 books. of these, 697 books have both subject headings assigned. Rr is right, the subjects overlap only partially. And, again as Rr says, the phrase need not necessarily match the subject. The subject heading, though, is controlled vocabulary assigned by subject experts. Obviously the books under it will show various points of view, and the article needs to reflect it. Indeed the books on even the first screen of the subject search reflect quite a range of political positions and approaches to the subject. I understand what Rr is saying, that the article may to some extent confuse the two subjects, but despite the apparent facility of dealing with POV problems by deletion, such is not the right approach. DGG (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very strong Keep Multiple sources available. POV problems are no reason for deletion. the phrase "Soviet propaganda" bring up '243 books in WorldCat  . The actual subject heading used in libraries "Propaganda, Soviet" finds 3,438 books. Perhaps the ed. who commented on the GS search not being necessarily specific might like to examine a few of the three thousand references before even starting in on the periodical articles. Any imaginable library should have a few of them. DGG (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment from someone who has read plenty of books and articles that address this topic. This article is called "Communist propaganda," not "Soviet propaganda."  I can't speak for others who voted delete, but I'd have no problem with an article on "Soviet Propaganda," which is clear and specific.  "Communist" propaganda, however, is not clear or specific, and the grouping of various kinds of propaganda here is artificial and smacks of WP:SYN.  Based on your argument, you should be advocating a merge with Soviet propaganda, not a "strong keep." csloat (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think, as csloat points out, DGG has missed the point here a bit. Rather than repeating myself here and cluttering the place up, I've replied on his talkpage. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure WorldCat people count as subject experts... and further, if we were at CfD I would not be arguing like this. I have no objection to Category:Communist propaganda existing, and various articles being part of sub-categories of that category. The point is that we don't recognise WorldCat as a reliables source, and the various ranges of political positions one sees in the first of those screens are actually various different subjects. What I see in each case is specific titles, leading us to the source of the propaganda in each case: the Soviet machine, the GDR, the Comintern, etc.
 * Its really very simple: all one needs to find is a couple of texts that lays out a generally accepted theory of what "communist propaganda" entails that isn't actually talking about "Soviet propaganda" or "Chinese propaganda" or "Martin Luther King". (Page 2 of that WorldCat search - see what I mean about the doubtfulness of WorldCat's subject expertise?) If those are found, then this article has a non-OR existence aside from a basic disambiguation page. We should all concentrate on that. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:07, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and, again, neither my argument nor csloats nor several others on this page make any use of POV problems. Those are irrelevant to the fact that no article can be created here that does not have content that is original research. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keepper Wikidemo and others."propaganda" is a value neutral word, even the Pope has his Congregatio de Propaganda Fide, as is "Communist" - if you know what they are you may or may not like them, but it's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT which is no reason to delete. Shyamsunder 22:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nowhere is the claim being made that the title is inherently non-neutral. The reasons for deletion are laid out above, and none of them focus on possible non-neutrality of the title. -- Relata refero (disp.) 10:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Propaganda is not POV, it's a truth; this is an incredibly well known subject that looks incredibly bad; and a merge is unacceptable, as Communist Propaganda is not the same as Soviet Propaganda or Maoist Propaganda. Editorofthewiki 14:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. "The proletaries of all world get united!" - that was a motto of communist propaganda and was universal. Another quote by Lenin in free translation: "If one still doesn't follow my idea, he should be locked in a cage as some Australian kangaroo and shown to people as an example". greg park avenue (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Erm; all you're illustrating is your ignorance of the meaning of the word "propaganda," not to mention "Communism." I'm done here. csloat (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep - There is little argument that Communist propaganda is a recognizable, notable aspect of propaganda as a whole. The topic clearly deserves its own article. It just needs a bit of a cleanup. -- Hux (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't disagree that Communist propaganda is something real and I don't think we disagree with that. GHit's are useless. I just say that the article for communist propaganda can be covered by Agit-Prop and History of the CPSU. Secondly, I don't think that propaganda in general is something bad. It's a way to spread ideas. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends on whose ideas the communism propaganda you want to spread. Those by John Lennon in his song Imagine I wouldn't mind a bit, but those spread by such a simpleton and criminal like Lenin lead to many wars and took millions of innocent lives starting with two millions starved to death kids - so called bezprizornyje - just after Revolution in Ukraine only. Still many Russians would disagree. This propaganda has been implanted into their brain so deeply, they revere Lenin until this very day as almost God and would say somehow sarcastically the way only Russians can do: He (Lenin) wanted good but it came out (business) as usual. greg park avenue (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The term "communist propagada" as applies to Lenno's song is nothing but label, possibly ironic. Mukadderat (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes related to the fresh version
Comment for late comers, amazed by the degree of militant ignorance expessed by several otherwise apparently smart people, I started a complete, total rewrite of the article, despite the fact that I am a far cry from being a trained politologist. Therefore the votes and opinions expressed above are related to this version. `'Míkka>t 22:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, still. The AfD debate is about the propriety of the article itself, not about your attempt to improve it. csloat (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  You probably cannot read, only write. I did not "improve" it. I wrote it anew 100% based on sources which specifically and exaclty speak about communist propaganda in its direct and general meaning. `'Míkka>t 22:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If your changes did not improve the article, why did you bother? It doesn't matter - my point stands.  This AfD is about the propriety of the article itself, not your attempt to improve it or "write it anew." And please see WP:CIVIL -- personal attacks such as the above are really unwelcome here. csloat (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, disembodied article in present version, free from any traces of POV, almost sterile one. Mikka even discarded my suggestion to include Maximilien Robespierre as the grandfather of the communist propaganda, because he found it poorly referenced by Paul Feval's novel Le Chevalier De Lagardère. greg park avenue (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai was right to remove the link to Robespierre and I've removed the other two French Revolution references you added. As I said in the edit comment: revolutionary France predates the advent of Communism by at least half a century. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Notwithstanding my vote for "keep" above. I reckon that this new version is significantly worse as an article than the previous one. -- Hux (talk) 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The previous content is not deleted. It moved into a place where it actually belongs, Propaganda in the Soviet Union. I wasted a day of my life to go to a library to dig some useful books to start a reasonably strctured article on the important topic only to receive a slap in the face. `'Míkka>t 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that both sides are jumping at conclusions amid a process without looking into what's actually happening. I don't think Hix had an intention to offend you. Indeed, the content of the current article is less rich. But the former content indeed did not belong to artcle of general topic. Mukadderat (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Methinks Mikka ought to read WP:OWN. csloat (talk) 05:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, expand. Mukadderat (talk) 03:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Comment. I suspect that opinons to delete this article were based on the fact that the term "communist propaganda" had lost its actuality today afer the collapse of the Soviet Union and no on really does any research on this topic. Indeed, I don't see any new books on the topic. May be I am looking not very well. Mukadderat (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The current article despite its drawbacks is based on scholarly valid references sufficient to demonstrate that indeed the term is not an arbitrary collocation, such as shameless propaganda, massive propaganda. It is a category of propaganda with well-defined but sufficiently broad scope. Laudak (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - deletion is not a way to solve POV / content disputes. Renata (talk) 04:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions.   —Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: I hope the closing admin knows what he's doing. Relata refero (disp.) 12:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.