Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments


 * 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 rename. But discussion on talk page (or WP:RM) is required to decide where; AfD can't easily do that. So not renamed yet, pending further discussion. ➔ REDVEЯS has a new (red) iPod 20:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

List of landmarks destroyed by Communist run governments

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not entirely clear cut, but does come across as a POV attack page. Some of the mentioned landmarks were in fact already damaged or destroyed by accident or war, not by state action. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, and we don't have "List of landmarks destroyed by capitalist governments" List of landmarks destroyed by Imperialist governments", "List of landmarks destroyed by liberal governments" etc. etc. Information is unreferenced and seemingly adequate references can't be found. Not clear that this material satisfies WP:NPOV, WP:V, and perhaps WP:N. Badgerpatrol 01:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * provisional Delete, as nominator, but I'm interested to hear the wider community's opinion. Badgerpatrol 01:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think there's a cause to keep this article, since there seems to be a pattern that Communist governments have destroyed their own countries' landmarks for political reasons. I'm sure there are other governments that have destroyed their own landmarks, though, possibly because they wanted to erase the memory of a former leader or because of political climate changes.  (Sort of like the practice of damnatio memoriae.)  Maybe the classification of "Communist-run governments" is pejorative.  In any case, there should be a list somewhere of landmarks destroyed by governments for political reasons, as opposed to destruction for practical reasons (e.g. the demolition of the previous High Bridge (St. Paul), which was listed on the National Register of Historic Places, because it was so deficient that it needed to be replaced.)  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, the entries in Category:Destroyed landmarks could be checked to determine which landmarks were destroyed for political reasons, as opposed to practical or operational reasons. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Whether it was Stalin destroying a Cathedral in Moscow, and thousands of other Orthodox churches, or Mao destroying Buddhist temples in Tibet there is a long history of Communist regimes attempting to destroy the culture of the countries they rule. These are not accidents of war but single minded attempts by the state to assert its dominance.  To say this is a POV attack page because liberal democracies don't go around blowing up Cathedrals is silly, rather like saying we shouldn't have an article on Hitler and the Holocaust because we don't have one about Churchill's programme to eradicate the Jews.  Saying that such and such a building or place was destroyed by a communist regime for political reasons isn't NPOV but a statement of fact.  This article is at an early stage of development but there's a wealth of material available, for the nominator to say that references 'can't be found' merely proves that he hasn't spent a moment looking for them.  The story of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour encapsulates the point of this article.  'After the Revolution and, more specifically, the death of Lenin, the prominent site of the cathedral was chosen by the Soviets as the site for a monument to socialism known as the Palace of Soviets. This monument was to rise in modernistic, buttressed tiers to support a gigantic statue of Lenin perched atop a dome with his arm raised in blessing.' When St. Pauls gets blown up for a huge statue of Gordon Brown to be built in its place then that phenomenon too will deserve its own article. Nick mallory 05:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nick- thanks for your more than vaguely insulting comments. I said that references "seemingly can't be found because almost all of the linked articles are unreferenced, few if any source the claim that these buildings were destroyed for political reasons, and many have had "fact" tags outstanding for months. If you have references to hand- add them, and then this becomes a moot point. Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, for example, does not have a single unambiguously WP:RS. If we can't find any sources, then we have a problem (and note that I am not necessarily doubting the claims, although I do detect a fairly obvious POV in the article). Very similar things do happen elsewhere- cf. the substitution of the Baltic Exchange for the Swiss Re tower; #1 Poultry; the Docklands programme; the Euston Arch etc etc. All of these acts of grotesque vandalism were for political reasons, although this may not be obvious to you; without wanting to misleadingly come across as a raging commie (I'm certainly not), either Britain isn't a capitalist country, or those buildings weren't demolished to make a profit under our capitalist system. Which is it?  Badgerpatrol 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. Moscovites have a saying about the destruction of the cathedral - Khram, Khlam, Sram - Cathedral, Ruin, Shame.  They knew the meaning of this act even if you somehow think the London Docklands redevelopment is the equivalent to Stalin's destruction of Christ the Saviour.  Presumably Wormwood Scrubs is exactly the same as the Gulag and Stalin and Churchill were two sides of the same coin.  Amazing.  If you want to write an article about buildings destroyed by the 'grotesque vandalism' for 'profit' in the 'capitalist system' then go ahead, but that's hardly relevant to this article.  As for a lack of political intent behind the destruction, Kirov said the Palace of the Soviets, proposed for the site, "will be just another push for the European proletariat, still dormant...to realize that we came for good and forever, that the ideas...of communism are as deeply rooted here as the wells drilled by Baku oilers". .  But what would he know eh? Nick mallory 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point out where I said that the Docklands redevelopment is equivalent to the destruction of Christ the Saviour? Of course, I didn't. We could not easily have an article listing buildings "destroyed by capitalist governments" because it would be near-infinitely long. We cannot easily have an article listing buildings "destroyed by Communist governments" because it should be near-infinitely long. We need to add references, for each instance, i.e. every building listed, demonstrating that the destruction was politically motivated. Currently we have none, making the list entirely POV. So keep going, add the references, and improve the article- that's how Wikipedia works. Badgerpatrol 13:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Monuments destroyed for political reasons (or something like that). The obvious non-communist example is the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhist statues a few years ago, and the various post-communist governments' removals of monuments in the early nineties. This should be kept and expanded out of its current POV. Totnesmartin 10:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support that generally, but only if the claim that the buildings were in fact destroyed for political reasons can be substantiated by reliable sources. So far, no sources have been offered. Badgerpatrol 10:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not have a separate article for buildings or monuments destroyed by religious sects or whatever? Why does it have to be inserted into this one?  Saying these buildings were destroyed by communist governments isn't a point of view, it's a simple statement of fact.  It's like saying an article about Man United is POV because it isn't also about Arsenal. Nick mallory 13:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we have to demonstrate that the buildings were destroyed not only by Communist governments, but because they were Communist governments, otherwise it is a partial and subjective listing that can never be adequately maintained. That = P.O.V. Badgerpatrol 13:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting case. I have to say keep with rename for now. Maintaining the list should not be too difficult, however setting the boundaries of inclusion might be hard. Sources are a must.Darkcraft 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename and expand per Totnesmartin's suggestion. Definitely interesting. I think the idea is notable, but the selectivity is definitely POV. Maybe it could be expanded to Monuments destroyed for ideological reasons, because a nice intro could be written to provide broader context of the long history in politico-religious defacement or destruction (e.g. ancient Egyptian attempt to airbrush Akhenaten out of history, destruction of Catholic architecture under Henry VIII and so on). A broader scope would also cover post-WW2 removal of Nazi monuments, such as the demolition of the shell of the Berghof. Gordonofcartoon 15:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I like the idea of entitling it "for ideological reasons". Demolition of landmarks isn't strictly a Communist phenomenon.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though the inclusion criteria should be tightened up some. The article itself doesnt seem POV pushing, regardless of one's views on Communism. I like the idea of broadening the criteria from "Communist-run" to "for ideological reasons", though the latter seems less well defined. The bigger problem is what qualifies as a landmark, and not necessarily what ideology the destroyer had. Arakunem 18:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Rename, rewrite, expand, and remove POV There have been many nationalist and religious landmarks removed by various governments for reasons which many of us disapprove of. A general article is one thing, a condemnation of a particular party is another. Motives are hard to discern. This article should ,be general ,with more particular subsidiary articles. DGG (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page was a natural outgrowth of User:Ghirlandajo/List but, since even the link to the parent list was cannibalized, it has no raison d'etre now. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you mean by cannibalised, but if you mean my removal of this link - then I can only say that it's surely not acceptable to link to a user page from a mainspace article. Badgerpatrol 22:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - due to scope, conversly, I would not suggest delete Articles more defined like: List of landmarks destroyed by Canadian Government (1944-1972) Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  22:14, 8 October 2007 (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.