Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialist countries (3rd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. We have no clear numerical consensus for deletion, so I must look to strength of argument. To begin with, I must substantially discount the "rename or [else] delete" type of opinions, for two reasons: AfD is not a venue for discussing the title of an article (backed up by the threat of deletion), that's what the talk page is for; and few specific alternative names seem to be proposed. Beyond that, the principal objection to the article seems to be that "socialism" has many meanings, and that the current list is not based on any one (or what the editors believe is the correct one) of these meanings. But that is not a problem of WP:OR mandating deletion; it is a challenge for editors to make a well-structured list that makes clear under which meaning of the term a country is included, and to back this up with references to reliable sources that identify the country as "socialist". It is not clear from the discussion or indeed the current list why that should be impossible, and I see no other arguments that, under applicable policies, would mandate deletion. So we're back at no consensus, and I encourage interested editors to continue the discussion about a possible renaming or restructuring on the article talk page.  Sandstein  06:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

List of socialist countries
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The AfD of Feb 2008 was not well attended (and the one I've just found out happened on Dec 2008 even less), and like many AfD's, had too many passing voters who didn't fully see why the article can't work. There was the usual headcount and the article remained. In time these lists get viewed by people (like myself), so it is time to propose deleting it again, this time giving more reasons:

1) In the 20C American came to use the word 'socialism' interchangeably with 'communism'. There are socio-political reasons for this that are particular to America - Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia and should not use such a narrow definition. Article titles should always follow Wikipedia's own definition of the word, which is broad, and follows dictionaries, and the majority of the world. This narrow definition of 'socialism' is often seen as a move to promote right-wing politics, and Wikipedia should be fully neutral.

2) List of countries by system of government contains sections that that cover one party states etc for people who particularly want to see those things covered – this article could be seen as a WP:FORK 'content fork' of that.

3) If (or 'when', if the AfD fails) the definition is made to be properly broad, then many would say the United Kingdom should be in one of the sub lists - and France etc too - where does it end when this is done properly? Narrowing definitions to what is 'manageable' always ends up being exclusionist and ultimately biased.  A manageable (or ultimately useful) list could not be made, and there would be unavoidable bias involved in ordering the sub lists.

4) Where is the List of capitalist countries? It would be needed to balance this article. It hasn't been done because it can't be done – the label 'capitalist' could not be used to mean right-wing dictatorships, and would have to be used in the properly broad sense. As with the proper definition of 'socialist', lines can not be fully drawn, and so a conclusive list would be impossible to create – and it would be pretty pointless too. Similar to List of communist countries, it could be argued that a 100% capitalist society does not exist.

Ultimately this is all too simplistic – the world can not be organised into lists as basic as this one. Matt Lewis (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or rename, the main issue is that the term socialism is used vaguely. The list names three types of counties: those who were ruled by a communist party, those who have a constitutional reference to socialism, and short-lived political entities. Socialism is a wide term, and for instance most counties in Western Europe have had a ruling socialist (often being described as the sub-type socialdemocratic) parties most of the time since World War II. There is for instance no problem arguing that for instance Norway, or even the United Kingdom, is ruled by a socialist government. There seems to be an American bias in this article that uses the term socialism as in its most extreme meaning, excluding probably the majority of countries that have socialist governments. The criteria basically require that the list include only those socialist countries that either have a single-party system or otherwise have defined themselves as such by means of excluding opposition. Even Sweden, that has almost had a continual socialist government since the 1940, would never define the term in its constitution. The list is inherently biased, and the scope must either be widened or the term socialism removed. Arsenikk (talk)  00:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the keep-votes below seems to say "it can be neutralized", but none of the editors actually explain how it can be neutralized. To take my example down to the operative level, is how to define a country as socialist. What are the objective criteria of calling a country socialist? The answer is: none. In the end, whether a country is socialist is a subjective decission, because socialism has many variations, and exists as a wide array of mixed economies. Here are some examples of possible definitions:
 * The state owns all means of production (this would exclude most socialist countries, because for instance social democracy allows free market enterprise within the frame of socialism).
 * The state owns infrastructure, such as utilities, railways, school etc. This would include many European counties, but perhaps not the UK.
 * The state provides free medical care, old-age care, higher education, provides a pension and is what is often called a welfare state. This would include most European countries, but would exclude some poor countries, who while they have the basis of socialist, simply cannot afford those high-end elements such as free higher education and old-age care, and perhaps not even health-care.
 * The state provides the basic elements of the welfare state, such as secondary education and health-care. This would make Canada a socialist country.
 * The governing party defines itself as socialist. This would include the UK, but exclude Sweden, although most people would agree that Sweden is more socialist than the UK. However, UK would fall off the list in the (likely) event that the Conservatives won the up-coming election.
 * There are many more possible definitions of a socialist country, and the list requires an objective and verifiable yes or no answer to whether they meet the criteria. Because any attempt of such a list would be original research or not be verifiable due to scholarly disagreement and the inherent vagueness of the term socialism, the entire scope of the list would have to change (including its name) or the article deleted entirely. Arsenikk (talk)  11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep- My logic is pretty much the same as the last afd. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Except for a few failed states which currently have no functioning government, every nation in the modern world utilizes socialism in a mixed economy, from Chile to China. This list attempts to draw sharp lines where no such lines can seriously be drawn, so it will always be inherently misleading. Well argued by Matt Lewis and Arsenikk. ~YellowFives 01:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or rename per nom and Arsenikk. One possible solution might be to rename the article something like "List of nominally socialist countries" or "List of self-identified socialist countries", and remove all nations whose official names and/or governing parties' names do not include explicit references to socialism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Rename. "Socialist" is too vague and broad of a word to create a definite list from. The definition used in the article (i.e. countries that self-identify as socialist) is not the typical definition of a socialist state (besides the point there is no easily agreed upon definition) and is therefore misleading to call this a "list of socialist countries". Singularity42 (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is of interest. Any discussion as to renaming should be on its talk page, not here. "List of nations self-identified as socialist" would seem to suffice -- but leave that to the other venue, not to AfD. Collect (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The above vote looks like another 'rename', not just a plain keep. In terms of desired shared outcome, in effect this is similar to 'Delete or Rename'. I think AfDs can be a good place to find out what people want. There is no harm in offering suggestions - as Collect in effect did. In my view the list is better being deleted than remaining the same, hence this Afd. I think the information in the list should be presented in the relevant articles, and I really don't think Wikipedia would miss this list (after all - who has used it??). I do also think lists are over done on Wikipedia - theoretically you can make a lists on anything, and they tend to be very hard to get deleted once they are made. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is, indeed, a "plain Keep." Many things just should not or can not be decided here, and renaming is one of them. I present above one possible rename, but if we start debating names, this AfD could drag on for weeks. The article meets WP standards. If anyone is affronted by the name, then discuss it civilly on the article talk oage. Meanwhile, I do not like having my reasons misstated as a "vote."  This is not the place for voting, it is the place for giving reasoning as to what the result of the AfD should bem and the closing admin ought not "count votes". Collect (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2009 (UTC) #
 * Oh come on, comments in AfD's do not make them drag on for weeks! Renames are often a discovered result of genuine AfDs - which is what this is. I find pedantry here technically wrong and really unwarranted. Would you wikilawyer here you wanted to 'delete'? We have to find a solution, and the closing admin is not supposed to just go by a head count - you are right. But we all know that in effect our comments are like votes, whether it is ideal or not, and that closing admin often find they have to tally up and go by the vote when they would rather have more to work on. So whether a rename is even posible has to be looked at here, as (apart from being a obviously beneficial thing to do) it will also help the closing admin make a decision/recommendation. In any case, there is nothing wrong in having debate (or leaving suggestions) in here at all - to frown upon any constructive debate in Wikipedia seems crazy to me, and it can be welcomed wherever it occurs. How often do we see it in areas of nationality, after all? This welcoming of dialogue is especially true for articles/lists like this one, where the talk page (like the List itself) is hardly linked to, and the comments it does attract complain about inherent issues/bias. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refactor your comments to avoid improper charges of "wikilawyering." And you do not seem to have weighed in on the talk page in question where I did, indeed, pose the issue.  I acted there, as I said should be done. Thanks. Collect (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the scope of the list is for the talk page--I agree with Collect about what it ought to be. Actually ecamining the list, I see it divided into meaningful categories, and not lumping everything together as some seem to argue.    DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  —Matt Lewis (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a tangled article that appears to attempt to produce a list of countries that have at some point self-identified as socialist, communist or other label that western sources have described as socialist. However as it includes countries that include constitutional references to some form of socialism that are not in practice socialist (by some definition that is not stated) and excludes those countries that are in practice socialist (by the same unstated definition) but do not explicitly self-identify as such in their name or constitution. While some of the lists or maps might be useful if a clear definition can be found, for example the list of countries that are or were Marxist-Leninist states, these would be better integrated with articles about that system of government (e.g. Marxism-Leninism) where they do not duplicate List of countries by system of government. Most of the article's contents is just a collection of vaguely defined poorly- or unencyclopaedic lists. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Pursuant to the discussion above, I hase posted the question of title for the article where it belongs - on the article talk page. An AfD is not the place for extended discussion of what words mean in the US, or what exceptions to use of a word may be - that is best left to the article talk page.  Collect (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and/or rename It is quite possible to make a list of socialist countries in the world if one clearly differentiates which branch of socialism they are applying (Marxist-Leninist, Arab, etc.). I should also raise the question of whether two nominations for deletion on the same day do not constitute an instance of Gaming the system. Ladril (talk) 14:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: What, pray tell, are you talking about? The first nomination was in February 2008. The second came in December of that year. And the current one came almost a year after that. Am I missing something here? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Explanation: it may be that the second nomination notice was not removed for a long time. I'm quite sure I saw it yesterday. But anyway, this isn't the main point. See my comment below. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This is going to be a big troll magnet, with people constantly posting either United States or Canada, and its another arbitrary, unencyclpedic list. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia has page protection policies for such cases. Ladril (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - it can be neutralized. --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It was possible to make a list of socialist countries in 1989; by logic it is possible to make one now. I just started to make edits to the page yesterday, and if you see my edit history you'll find I have done a lot of work on political geography-related pages. I ask for a few more weeks to work on the page and see if it can be made more coherent and consensual. Ladril (talk) 17:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It will be possible to make many lists for any given year using varying definitions of "socialist" and various criteria for inclusion. That doesn't necessarily make any of them encyclopaedic lists though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I chose 1989 as an example because the Soviet bloc was still in existence back then. Now, I don't believe the criteria for 'socialist' are as fuzzy as some people seem to believe. To deny that a list of socialist countries can be compiled is to deny socialism ever existed as a political system. What needs to be done is to find a consensus view on what is a socialist country. That's far from impossible. It has been done on other geography pages and it can be done for this one. Ladril (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem with that statement is that Soviet-bloc style socialism is just one of a variety of definitions of socialism. For example few people would dispute that Hugo Chávez's government in Venezuela is socialist, but equally few people would describe it as being similar to the socialist regime in Cuba. It seems from the tone of your comment that you are equating socialism with communism, which I get the impression is not an untypical viewpoint in the USA but is not at all common in Europe. I am not denying that a "list of all countries that have at some point in their history have described themselves as "socialist" (using any definition of "socialism") in their constitution or in the name of the country whether or not they were socialist in practice" is possible, indeed this is what the article currently is, what I'm saying is that such a list would be neither useful nor encyclopaedic. Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The impression you have about my position is wrong. I do not equate socialism with communism (a communist society is one where the working class owns the means of production and there is no need for a state; definitely not what socialism was in theory nor in practice). I also do not believe that any country that calls itself socialist is inherently one, because if that were the case, Nazi Germany would be in the list. However, it's defeatist to assume that no serious list of socialist countries can be compiled. If you consider socialist a country which declared to follow Marxist doctrine and that nationalized and collectivised the means of production, and/or followed other socialist doctrines such as Indian socialism, Arab socialism, African socialism, etc., a useful list can be compiled. Ladril (talk) 17:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Further comment before anybody closes A central concern seems to be that there are nations that use the word 'socialist' to define themselves while not really being socialist in a political and economic sense. I agree with the concern. However, one cannot deny that countries have applied different socialist doctrines. Thus, it is easy to find academic studies on Indian socialism, Arab socialism, and African socialism as political doctrines and systems applied in specific countries. If we base the list on academic sources I believe consensus views can be found in a painless way. Ladril (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur. —Sesel (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A notable and useful list. If there are any neutrality problems, they can be fixed. --darolew (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In my opinion, the problem of this page is that it merges different situations starting from pure nominalistic bases. Marxist-Leninist countries, also called Socialist or Communist states (a little note for Matt Lewis: before 1917, in all world, not only in America, the word 'socialism' was interchangeable with 'communism'), are a clearly defined group of countries. The section "Non-Marxist-Leninist" enlists an undefined number of heterogeneous countries on various bases instead: what is the link between Portugal and USSR or India? To make an exemple, it is as to create a page called List of Presidents Roosevelt speaking about both Theodore and Franklin Delano, starting from the fact that they had the same surname.... --Cusio (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interchaneable with communism before 1917? I can't see that being the case. What about Marx? He clearly stated that a socialism can lead on to communism - ie it was one of his societal stages. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Marx did use the words 'socialism' and 'communism' in an interchangeable way. The distinction between the two as different phases appeared first on Lenin's State and Revolution. Ladril (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename, but keep. Providing it's renamed to something like 'List of self-declared socialist countries', I don't think there's any problem with it. It's impossible to provide an objective classification of 'socialist countries', but this list doesn't try to do so: it states 'This is a list of countries, past and present, that declared themselves socialist either in their names or their constitutions.' That seems acceptable to me, providing it's well-referenced. Inevitably people will try to vandalise it to add countries that don't fit, but that doesn't mean the basic idea of the list is flawed. Robofish (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. (Vote of nominator). I feel strongly that ideas for renaming/improvement should be at least proposed here. Esp for article improvement - it is far too easy at AfD's to say "keep - and improve", often by people who have no intention of looking at it any further. The rename (if it came to that) would have to be a good one - I would rather see the list deleted, and the info moved into the relevant articles. Remember that the definition of 'socialism' can still change between 'self-defining' countries! Matt Lewis (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Deletion nominations are not a majority voting procedure. What defines whether the article stays or not are the arguments, not the number of votes. Just to let you know. Ladril (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What keeps making the list confusing is that the criterion for defining a socialist country is one where the constitution says "this is a socialist state". I challenge this view. I would propose defining a socialist country as one where the legal system explicitly states that the means of production are not owned by individuals, but by the state for the collective good of the people. Even the constitution of China says this to this day, so I think this is a safe bet. This would make the list shorter but also more coherent to everyone, I believe. Ladril (talk) 02:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my view that would make a decent definition of a communist state, but a poor one for a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, the definition of 'socialism' I subscribe to is a Leninist one, where putting ownership of the means of production in the hands of the working class is the 'socialist' step, while further transition to a classless society represents the achievement of 'communism'. I think this reflects history quite well, as no modern society has ever achieved communism (so strictly speaking, there can be no list of 'communist countries'). Perhaps this debate is better left for the article's talk page, but how would you define 'socialism' then? Ladril (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, socialism is an ideology that is opposite to conservatism and occupies a similar, but no more or less extreme, range on the political spectrum. That is, it is about things like a welfare state, state education, public healthcare that is free at the point of use, regulation of business with the aim of preventing excesses of capitalism, public services provided by the state. This is a far less extreme definition than that you subscribe to, and quite probably an artifact of my exposure to European-style socialism (probably closer what another commenter on here described as "social democracy" which to me is nearly synonymous with "socialism"). In name this would make Britain a socialist country, given this was the historical ideology of the Labour Party, but should the Conservatives win the next election, Britain would not belong on the list as the Tories are avowedly not socialist, despite the practical differences in actual policies not being great. All this just illustrates how much use a list of this sort isn't. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have several objections to your definitions, but I'll stick to a major point for the sake of brevity. There is a major difference between socialist states and socialist governments. Several countries have seen a socialist party achieve political power, but if the state institutions are not reformed so as to give a state a socialist structure (with an emphasis on the working class as the group in power, state property over the means of production, etc.) we can't speak of a socialist state in such a case. The entire Soviet bloc is a case in point of a group of socialist states.


 * It's true that defining a socialist state is not always easy, and some leeway is needed. However I don't believe European social democracies fit the definition. They never adopted the discourse of taking property over the means of production from capitalists. Ladril (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: I've just notified some relevant portals/articles about this AfD (according to the guidelines). I did not have the time to do this when I opened the AfD, and then unfortunately I was offline for a few days. It seems that people are not aware this list exists, and the posibilities of merging into articles etc, means they need to at least be aware of this AfD. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

*Keep. It uses a precise definition of requiring the country to describe itself as socialist in its name or constitution. This is not the same as social democracy (as seen in Europe) or socialist governments getting elected. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [Belinrahs|talktome⁄ ididit] 17:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, I am the source for most of the list (I double-checked and indeed I am), but I did not create it according to that criterion. That "constitutional" definition was added later by someone else. In the main, there were three criteria I considered: identification of the state or sole ruling party with Marxism-Leninism (the most straightforward criterion); states (or sole ruling parties) defined by a non-Marxist form of socialism; and states whose sole ruling parties did not (to my knowledge) adopt explicit socialist language but emerged from a strong left-wing socialist or communist-aligned milieu (Cape Verde is a good example of this one). My thought process was based on practical interpretations of socialism and communism, not theoretical considerations. I won't take a side in this discussion because (a) my list might justly be labeled original research and (b) I think the list is useful. —Sesel (talk) 23:50, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You realise that you shouldn't have created a list based on your own knowledge and thought processes, right? For heavens sake, next time you edit an article stick to using what sources say and not your personal musings on the topic. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * These weren't my "personal musings." I had credible sources to list them. This edit was three years ago. My approach was probably mistaken, but sources can still be found to back up the list and I think it can be repaired. In any event, I have no intention to try to reinstate this article if it is deleted. I don't like your confrontational tone after just my first comment on the issue and a legitimate explanation. —Sesel (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Credible sources often conflict with one another. This is why editors have to reach consensus views to define what goes in an article and what doesn't. I don't believe the list creator took a wrong approach by trying to adopt a definition of socialist country, even if I would dispute some of the choices myself. Ladril (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename As said above. --TIAYN (talk) 21:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Speedy close as "no consensus". Relisting is done when insufficient participation. The discussion had sufficient attention, which clearly shows that the opinions are polarized, and they will remain polarized as long as the article remains in bad state (unreferenced). I strongly suggest to continue the discussion about article improvement in article talk page. Otherwise all useful things uttered will be helplessly lost in AFD archives. Timurite (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * a very good point about when to relist and when not to.   DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as inherently original research  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Thryduulf, original research is just the beginning of the problems here. JBsupreme (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Politically biased and so contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The criterion that a country is listed because at any time in the past it was declared socialist carries with it the hopelessly biased assumption that socialism somehow marks the country forever. What's next?  A list of countries that ever suspended civil liberties and fell into fascism?  And why not also a list of countries that ever practiced laissez faire?  You can't read history that way and maintain a neutral point of view.--Dbratland (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article uses countries which self-described themselves as socialist or "Marxist." Hence the queue of !votes is slightly misleading.  Were a country to self-describe itself as "laissez faire" that would be a valid list. We do have a "List of kingdoms" etc. And Dictatorship has a list of them. Sorry -- in line with other WP lists.   Collect (talk) 12:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment That socialism was a historical reality during the 20th and 21st centuries cannot be denied. What is intended with a list like this is to show that some countries experimented with socialism during a specific time period. I don't think that's advocacy or biased POV. Likewise, a sourced list of fascist countries would not be any more unencyclopedic than any other article of the many that already exist about fascism (though I would prefer to call it a 'list of national socialist countries'). Ladril (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the above comment totally at odds with what Wikipedia is about. It uses particular definition(s) of socialism for its argument (and there is nothing 'experimental' about my own socialism, and there are millions like me in the UK alone), and it admits to WP:OR. Wikipedia isn't about proving anything. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. there is already something similar in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fascist_movements_by_country Ladril (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If the purpose is to show the time period when some countries called themselves socialist, and argue that it is meaningful because of when that happened, then first, the list should be deleted and a timeline should be created, and second, it's original research.A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government. --Dbratland (talk) 17:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is sourced, how can it be original research? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information.
 * As for the timeline, it can be done.
 * "A list of movements that merely existed of even in is in no way the same as a list of countries that adopted a form of government." Well, they have in common that they can be listed. Ladril (talk) 18:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When you choose to arrange facts in a particular way, and exclude other facts, you are expressing an idea. It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary.  The idea behind how you choose to arrange the facts has to come from somewhere -- you either cite that the idea is widely accepted by mainstream, reputable sources, or you admit that you made up the idea yourself and publish it somewhere other than Wikipedia.  If it can be proven this is not OR, then delete the page and make a timeline.  If it is purely OR, then delete the page and leave it be. --Dbratland (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I would add to the above that sources on their own are never enough. Articles (and especially Lists, as they connect entities intrinsically) need purpose, balance, WP:weight, reliable sourcing (WP:verifiability and WP:SOURCE), must pass neutrality (WP:NPOV) and No Original Research (WP:NOR), and must also pass WP:REDFLAG. Articles must generally avoid containing forked information (WP:fork), nor be a WP:coatrack article designed to make a point (the 'experiment of socialism' perhaps?). If I had a penny for every time I came across some variation of this skewed logic on Wikipedia: Source(s) collected/discovered = any form of developed statement/assumption/creation from the sourced 'fact/facts' is/are allowed. It's all in the guidelines . Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The word 'experiment' is not POV-charged. In the dictionary experiment is defined as "an innovative act or procedure". Besides, no one is arguing for its inclusion in the page lead. Ladril (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "It is not enough to find primary and secondary sources for each fact and call that tertiary." We completely agree. However, | there is no shortage of third-party sources defining what a socialist country is and providing lists of them. As is done for all lists (even featured lists) editors should try to arrive at a | consensus as to which definitions to favour the most. No one is trying to exclude "facts" from the list. In fact the objections to the list seem to come from people who make claims that just about any country can be included in the list (or arguments to that effect). If that's the case, it's up to them to find reliable sources to justify the inclusion of the UK in the list (as they have argued on this very page). Ladril (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You talk as if a list once made is established, and then it's up to others to make it work. Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles. And it would still retain all the problems related above. The US has a socialist history too, and many of its services are still state run. Wikipedia lists are not adventure playgrounds to explore possible boundries: we have main articles that should cover these matters. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment "Putting the UK in the list would water it down to the point of making it a complete fork of socialism and its related articles." That assuming we could find a consensus view to define the UK as a socialist state. I honestly doubt we can. Having a socialist party in power is not the same as building a socialist state. Ladril (talk) 00:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * For some (but not all) definitions of socialism the UK's welfare state and National Health Service make it a socialist country. Having a socialist party in power is an equally valid, although different, definition of what makes a socialist state. Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I doubt any sources would back that up. Ladril (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it possible to say why? Matt Lewis (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain why you feel this article should be kept? AfD is not a vote, and so simply stating "keep" (or "delete", etc) without explaining why you think that does not normally help a consensus emerge, and they are thus routinely ignored by the closing administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about not elaborating, but my keyboard is so badly broken I could only type "keep" with it and be legible. I think it is a legitimate topic to have a list about, since socialism is well documented and would be a large enough topic to cover. If the issue is clarity, perhaps we could insist that the article cover only countries with socialism explicitly mentioned in their constitutions or their founding. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Socialism is an interesting concept, with its wide range from the British labour party to the cuban communists. There is a connecting ideology, and |(sometimes) an attempt to opose the capitalist status quo.  The fact that, in 2009, there are enough such countries to form a list is remarkable.  The comparisons between them yield some fascinating insights.  How can this list be anything other than notable?   Now, some of the arguements appear to be ideologicial: we don't like socialists so exclude them from WP.  others seem to be about classification: who qualifies?   The first is no reason to delete, and the second is far less likely to occur without a list.  Deleting an article because it causes healthy debate is not something I am comfortable with.  OK, the accuracy problem makes it appear un-encyclopaedic, but tough.  WP can be edited whenever there is an election: it usually is.   --Brunnian (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That there is such a wide range is an interesting feature of socialism but it does not make a useful list - we already have articles on the different forms of socialism, and a list of countries by form of government. The comparisons between them might be interesting, but they are almost certainly original research. Note also that you seemingly see this list as a "list of countries that currently have any type of socialist government" whereas Ladril apparently sees it as a "list of countries that have ever had a Marxist-Leninist government and state structure or have declared themselves to be 'socialist' (meaning Marxist-Leninist) at any point in their history". The two are very, very different lists - that the proponents of keeping can't even agree on what the list is a list of seems as good an argument to delete it as any. Doubly so when you add in the problems of WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV (at least one of which is inevitable in every interpretation of the list I've seen here). Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Assuming there is a lack of consensus on what the list should contain, per guidelines it is preferable to work towards consensus on talk pages rather than to delete pages arguing no consensus (especially if you haven't used the article's talk page to seek the consensus in the first place). Besides, the list of states by system of government does not replace this one, for several reasons. One of the most important is that if you're going to have historical entries for socialism in an encyclopedia, by logic you need a list of countries who were socialist.Ladril (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW your characterization of my position is incorrect. I'm willing to argue for the inclusion of non-Marxist socialist states - such as Tanzania - on the list. On the other hand, I'm not sure about other cases. But this is a debate for the article's talk page. I believe the time spent arguing here could be better spent improving the list. Ladril (talk) 23:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * e/c I don't think anyone here is really trying to censor the mention of socialism - if anything it is the oposite in a sense. You seem to have a very 'idealistic' idea about what Wikipedia sets out to do. Wikipedia is meant to inform certainly, but is never supposed to be provocative or stimulating in quite the way you feel comfortable with (which is others discomfort of course). Any stimulation should be a side effect of neutral and encyclopedic information. If this list is unencyclopedic, it should be deleted full stop. That is the 'toughness' of the Afd process, and it will give editors the time to improve the area of socialism on Wikipedia in the articles that are both approved and actually linked to. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If people want to keep this list, why not sandbox it, or copy it into a wikiproject perhaps? Then link to it in your discussions. It is Original Research, and not mainspace stuff at all. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a matter of "want" or "not want" -- it is a question of whether sufficient and valid reasoons for deletion are presented. Lists in general are found on WP and not deleted as OR, so that is not, in itself, a reason for deletion.  See Lists of Kingdoms, Dictaroships and more -- each amd all of which are OR by the logic presented in this discussion. WP has invariably ruled that lists are not OR for trivial reasons.  WP has over six hundred thousand examples of "List of" as an article name or redirect.  Collect (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In my experience, the majority view is that Wikipedia is too big (not strictly in an exclusionist sense, but due to too many unknown/forked/non-notable/synthesised/etc articles). Many also feel that unattended Afds should delete as default. There has always been a problem with article and list removal on Wikipedia. I admit that I have seen an un-policy and unwieldy list pass a small Afd before now. But that doesn't make it right. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for providing an excellent reason why "default to delete" is not policy. Sox hundred thousand lists await your nomination for deletion . Collect (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What reason was that then? It's only for unattended AfDs. If a list has no links or contributors then it hasn't been properly realised. I can't see the sense in supporting lists you've never seen anyway. I appreciate solidarity, but.. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment I have serious doubts a consensus will be reached. Opinions seem too polarized. Like I've said often, I would prefer we took this time to improve the page. Ladril (talk) 00:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename at the very least, delete otherwise: the socialist article says that the term itself is difficult to define, and this article seems to be more about ex-communist governments. There are countries such as France which had a government in the not-so-distant past formed by the Socialist Party, but because the country indicates that it is a republic in its constitution, it is not included. This article has neither a WP:NPOV name nor NPOV content. With the name Socialism in the title, I doubt that this article will ever be NPOV, as each country in the world has a different opinion of what socialism means. Indeed, even within countries themselves, people cannot come to any agreement on the appropriate definition. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A section about name is on the talk page. Collect (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Several comments 1. 'Socialist' is a more neutral name than 'Communist' to refer to these states because the vast majority of them adopted the name socialist (making the term 'communism' more of an imputation). 2. Also, as said before, the definition of what is a socialist country should be reached through consensus. This is done for every list on the encyclopedia and I don't see why it can't be done for this one. 3. No, a state does not become socialist merely by having a socialist party come to power. Many of the former socialist states of Eastern Europe have seen the Communist/Socialist parties come back to power and this does not mean they became socialist states again. 4. I believe the best comment made on this page about the list is the one by Cusio above (practically ignored so far): the major problem with the list is that states are chosen on a purely nominalist basis. The list needs a lot more research and consensus, and a more academic definition of socialist state, but not deletion (especially not if the deletion is intended only to prove the point that socialism can't be defined). Ladril (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Also ok with no consensus close, based on diversity of opinion. I can't believe the teabaggers have not added the United States to the article yet.--Milowent (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny how words can have different meanings in different parts of the world. I can see diversity in socialism's definition, but not particularly in the opinions on what to do with the list. They are two different things. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2009 (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.