Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism


 * 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. However, care should be taken to maintain a neutral point of view. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism

 * – ( View AfD View log )

POV essay in the making. 'Things I find similar between X and Y' is not a good idea for an article, even if similar arguments are occasionally voiced by some scholars, as it becomes a selective soapboxing. With the risk of indulging in WP:OTHERCRAP, I'd say that 'Comparison of X and Y' opens up for 'Comparison between Liberalism and Nazism', 'Comparison between Catholicism and Satanism', 'Comparison between Socialism and Sadism', etc.. Soman (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 02:01, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks notability. Lacks analysis of the topic it purports to discuss. It looks like it was created merely to suggest that there are commonalities between the two ideologies. But after looking article's history I am surprised now that it was not named Proof that Nazism equals Stalinism. (Igny (talk) 04:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC))


 * Delete - Yes, there is sourcing out there on this topic: "Red Fascism" or whatever one wants to call it. No, there probably shouldn't be an article on it, because it is inherently a POV topic -- originating circa 1939 at the time of the Hitler-Stalin pact. Would or should an article called Comparison of Conservatism and Nazism fly? How about Comparison of Liberalism and Communism? No and no, unless I miss my guess, even though either of those could probably be sourced out with an hour's worth of work. Why? Those topics are clearly POV enterprises. This is a similar situation, even though the POV might be hard for a non-specialist to see. Carrite (talk) 04:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * HA! Complete with a photoshopped "montage" image of Hitler and Stalin!!! Check out the rights description of that image if you need further proof that something is rotten in Denmark. Carrite (talk) 04:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "HA!"?! You saw the picture and didn't immediately realize it was a montage? As a general education, well-known images Marx-Engels-Lenin, Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin and Marx-Engels-Lenin-Stalin-Mao are all photo montages (and three out of five in the last one are notorious mass murderers). -- Sander Säde  18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep no valid reason given under Deletion_policy. This notable topic is subject of at least four scholarly sources of the highest reliability:
 * Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
 * Furet, François; Ernst Nolte (2001). Fascism and communism. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803219953.
 * Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
 * Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.
 * --Martin (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Here's another substantial book about the topic: The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia. The notability of the topic is well established.  Warden (talk) 06:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that Martin's comment decides it. There is clearly an encyclopaedic and scholarly topic to be written here.  Therefore, "Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism" should not be a redlink, and this AfD must be closed as "keep". However, this is going to be a difficult topic to write, because of its controversial nature and because so many Wikipedians are interested in Fascism, Stalinism and the Second World War in general.  This kind of article can turn into a war between competing "experts" for a while.  I think the content will need to be written much more carefully than is the case at the moment.  I suggest that whenever you make an opinion statement in this article, you use in-text attribution.  So for example, where the current text reads the two regimes have been described as the most murderous in history, with only Pol Pot being comparable, a preferable wording would be Kershaw (1997) says that the two regimes are the most murderous in history.  Yes, this will make the text more cumbersome, but it will also lead to many fewer arguments, reduce any potential risk of copyright violation claims from those who wish to delete it, and make the article seem more authoritative, reliable and trustworthy.  Good luck—I wouldn't personally try to write this content on Wikipedia.— S Marshall  T/C 08:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That is good advice. Obviously the article requires great care and the aim is to get consensus first on the talk page in regard to the scope before expanding this stub, and a couple of editors have offered their views on what should be covered in bullet point form on the article talk page. --Martin (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Martin, no shortage of sources to show notability. The Last Angry Man (talk) 08:50, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note The Last Angry Man has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of mark nutley . --TFD (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - for the moment, due to the notability of this topic, I'm going to !vote to keep it. However, this article should cover such comparisons, not turn into one. There are serious dangers that this article is going to turn into a massive coatrack. The article shouldn't make any value judgements about Hitler and Stalin or any other dictators, but encyclopaedically cover the history of such comparisons. Anthem 10:14, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am going to delete the photoshopped montage, which is an utter POV fabrication and has no place in a serious encyclopedia. If concerned activists editors want to include complete and separate images of Hitler and Stalin, that would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the image is included is a content issue that should be discussed on the article talk page, but I note a similar image was deemed to be satisfactory and kept in the discussion Files_for_deletion/2009_January_20. --Martin (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Original photo montage to advance a thesis = original research. Carrite (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, it illustrates a concept already present in reliable sources (see, for example). --Martin (talk) 05:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources specifically refer to and engage in the scholarly study of Nazism and Stalinism in comparison. There is nothing "POV" about it. There is no WP:OR or synthesis here, nor is there some "Proof that Nazism equals Stalinism" agenda here. The wailing and gnashing of teeth is what is POV here. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I differ and share the opinion of the nominator that this is a "POV essay in the making." Just you watch. Carrite (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you've already derided that there is serious scholarship on the topic by suggesting Comparison of Conservatism and Nazism and Comparison of Liberalism and Communism are equally tenable Wikipedia article topics. Perhaps you'd like to respond at the article to what I've responded with to TFD as what I would consider as in scope to the article. I'd take your objections more seriously if they weren't based on ridiculing something instead of offering a thoughtful response. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. What can work as a book doesn't necessarily work as a Wikipedia article. Agree that this is going to be a POV-magnet, for all sides. History of the 1930s, 1940s is already covered in numerous articles. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why it can't work. The only issue at the moment is (my perception) that some editors are objecting based only on their personal prejudices that other editors are going to use the article as a WP:FORUM to equate Hitler and Stalin (as expressed in the past, although that specific charge hasn't been made this time around, yet). I've suggested an approach to content, let me know if that strikes you as POV. P ЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The comparison dates back to the 1920s and this has been the subject of extensive scholarly study and countless books for decades. The article needs expansion, but could be a worthwhile addition to articles such as the one on the official European remembrance day for Stalinism and Nazism, thus providing more of the background of why these ideologies are commemorated together and the extensive history of the comparison/concept/theory(/ies)/scholarly debate since the 1920s. Tataral (talk) 17:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very well-known area of academic research, so the question is how come we didn't have the article so far? Needs to be expanded, naturally, but there is plenty of highest quality sources for that (scientific monographs, peer-reviewed scientific articles). Nominator doesn't actually give a reason, so I recommend a premature close/withdrawal. -- Sander Säde 18:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Protest all you want, but this article really is a POV essay in the making, presented as it is. If there's any reason for it to survive it would be to examine the history of scholarship that deals with the topic in a historical sense, and it would certianly need a rename. The current title suggests that there's a natural comparison to be made and that it needs to be made, where any amount of "comparison" topics can just as easilt be written, and are not, for good reasons. -- 143.112.144.129 (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2011 (UTC) 14 June 2011
 * Keep If multiple university presses are publishing books on a certain topic it is generally notable, and I think that's the case here. Certainly could use some cleanup by a knowledgeable editor, but I don't think it's irredeemably biased. Qrsdogg (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The broader topic already turns up in multiple "criticisms of" sections in artcles on communism, fascism and various "criticisms" of articles. Another one dealing with the same subject isn't necessary 143.112.144.129 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Very subjective and very vague grounds for deletion! This isn't an article about a "broader topic", but an article specifically about comparing Nazism and Stalinism, a subject addressed by multiple reliable sources. It isn't the same as other articles about "communism." 203.118.185.200 (talk) 23:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep With multiple reliable sources specifically comparing Nazism and Stalinism, this is an obviously notable and significant subject. No reason it shouldn't be the topic of an article; article problems can be fixed by editing and are not a reason for deletion. 203.118.184.111 (talk) 02:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Yes, some scholars have compared the two systems, but we would need an overview of this literature to establish the notability and coherence of the topic so that a neutral article could be written. TFD (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? That to me looks an awful lot like making up an arbitrary reason for deletion. And if in your view "an overview of this literature" could establish notability, why are you voting delete? 203.118.184.237 (talk) 02:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Notability has not been established and we have no sources to explain what weight to apply. Good reason to delete.  However, if you can find sources, then please present them.  TFD (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the IP that this is an arbitrary reason. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." This is significant coverage:
 * Kershaw, Ian; Moshé Lewin (1997). Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison, Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521565219.
 * Furet, François; Ernst Nolte (2001). Fascism and communism. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803219953.
 * Rousso, Henry; Richard Joseph Golsan (2004). Stalinism and nazism: history and memory compared. University of Nebraska Press. ISBN 9780803290006.
 * Geyer, Michael; Sheila Fitzpatrick (2009). Beyond totalitarianism: Stalinism and Nazism compared. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780521723978.
 * Overy, Richard (2004), The dictators: Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Allen Lane. ISBN 9780713993097
 * --Martin (talk) 04:18, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've stricken my delete vote above. This isn't even close in terms of notability, clearly a keep. But it's gonna be a POV magnet, mark my words. Carrite (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2011 (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.