Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural Bolshevism


 * 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 #1 Non-admin closure Jobrot (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Cultural Bolshevism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Essentially the same as "Cultural Marxism" which has been the topic of many long deletion discussions. Whoever created this was defintely trying to game the process. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm literally in the middle of suggesting the Cultural Marxism section of The Frankfurt School page be merged into the Cultural Bolshevism page. My discussions on this matter, predates this deletion request |diff. If the matter is pushed further I will make it the subject of an AN/I. --Jobrot (talk) 05:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The two are not mutually exclusive. You can redirect the page now if you wish, and the AfD still be allowed to run its course - that way we avoid that someone else comes along and recreates the page. By letting the AfD run its course, we can preempt that situation. It certainly is silly to oppose the deletion when you are in fact not in favor of having a separate article on this topic. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misunderstood the direction of you proposed merger. I definitely don't think the cultural Marxism should be moved from the Frankfurt school page to the Cultural Bolshevism page. I think that would be SYNTH unless you have some very good sources suppoorthing that there is a continuity between the two ideas and terms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:27, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose; the reason for this deletion isn't accurate (the article dates back to 2009, before our now-deleted article on Cultural Marxism even existed). And there's a clear distinction between the two cases; this term has significant coverage from reliable sources in the context of its usage in Nazi propaganda.  It hasn't seen much editing in that time, and I'm not necessarily sure we need an article on every term used in Nazi propaganda, but at the very least it predates the current controversy and was not created as an attempt to game the process. --Aquillion (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ie an "overlap" argument for the two being merged: "Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability."


 * Oppose: this article is a valid topic in its own right.--Jack Upland (talk) 05:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Keep) - Sourced, non-trivial, it and "cultural marxism" are related but not equivalent concepts from different historical periods. BMK (talk) 05:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Beyond My Ken. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination obviously misrepresents the history of this topic. Note also that there are equivalent pages in other languages. Andrew D. (talk) 16:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As above: "this article is a valid topic in its own right". Dnm (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2015 (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.