Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious communism


 * 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. Since the relist on June 27th a very clear consensus to keep has formed. KaisaL (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Religious communism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article seems to be based on WP:SYN - editorial extrapolation from a single source which is not about the subject. Guy (Help!) 18:54, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - this article is noncompliant with WP:NOR, WP:SYNC, WP:ADVOCACY and fails WP:RS. Atsme 📞📧 21:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge whatever content is salvageable into Communism and redirect. The Communism article already has a Christian communism section whose scope can be expanded. Graham (talk) 05:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC) While I'm still not entirely opposed to a merge until such time as a split is warranted, now that I have seen the newly cleaned up article, I have to lean towards a weak keep. Graham (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per our editing policy, the current state of the topic is not a reason to delete; rather it is a reason to improve the page. The Encyclopedia of Protestantism] quite clearly states that "Two forms of communism may be distinguished: religious communism and political communism..."  Relevant sources include The theological basis of digger Communism; Amana: A Study of Religious Communism; The early Shakers: an experiment in religious communism; Communal utopias and the American experience: religious communities, 1732-2000, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Andrew Davidson. I expect a check of Google books will turn up quite a few reliable sources. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 19:31, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge to Communism and redirect: It's a poor quality article but it meeds GNG as a "real" thing and not a hoax, as far as I can see.  Again, the concern for AfD is not quality but notability.   Montanabw (talk)  20:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 *  Redirect to Communalism Keep without prejudice to Merge to Communalism   I'm impressed by the sources that have been found, but the current state of the article, especially the absence of sourcing for the existence of the topic; means, IMO, that our readers are not likely to believe anything they see here.  If someone volunteers to work on it, it would be fine to draftify or userfy while retaining the redirect in mainspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It is interesting that the article creator has commented on the talk page of the article. In response to the ping below, I did a Google book search on ["religious communism" "communalism"], and both terms seems to be in use.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:44, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon  00:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Clearly notable topic, reliable references exist, and the article is far, far from unsalvageable. Send to cleanup if you must, but by no means delete.  I also oppose merging, as it seems to me that the topic is sufficiently notable for its own article. Religious communism is widely discussed as different from other forms of communism.  Fieari (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I re-wrote the article per WP:TNT, I cleaned up the WP:OR/WP:SYNTH issues, and I added a bunch of inline citations to reliable sources that discuss this topic. I urge the editors that have voted for deletion/merging/redirection to take another look at the new version of the article (pinging, , , , and ). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and especially for all of your work on the article. I have revised my comment above accordingly. Graham (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's kept, it needs to be renamed. It's a term not a topic for a stand alone article, and it's not even correct terminology. "Religious" is belief in a religion, "communism" is an ideology that has nothing to do with spirituality, or religion.  Google it and the only thing that comes up are the WP articles.  Thanks for the edits, . I'm still of the mind that there simply isn't enough beyond philosophical pondering that makes this article worthy as a stand alone. Merge what was sourced with the section in Communism, if it isn't already there, or delete it. Atsme 📞📧 06:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If I were to write an article about the intersection between religion and communism, I probably wouldn't use the phrase "religious communism." However, "religious communism" is the term that has been used in dozens (and possibly hundreds) of books and articles to describe this topic. To be honest, when I first saw this AfD thread, I didn't think I would find sources to substantiate the notability of this topic, but I soon discovered dozens of sources that discuss the history and significance of this concept. I think there is still room for expansion, but I wouldn't be opposed to merging this elsewhere if the consensus in this discussion thinks that this material should be placed within the context of another article. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * thank you for your input. The community will do what it will, but those who take the time to read the sources will see that the topic is actually communism and one of the terms used is religious communism.  It requires SYNTH to put it together and that is unacceptable for a WP article.  In fact it is noncompliant with our fundamental principals in article writing.  Delve into it and you will see that this article is shallow and confusing because without SYNTH there is no such thing as "religious communism".  There is communism which a few sources have attempted to tie-in to religion but again, it requires SYNTH to make it notable.  The terminology is actually a product of that SYNTH. Atsme 📞📧 18:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable topic, AFD is not cleanup, etc. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly notable, and has been re-written to address many of the concerns expressed above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable historical topic, decent sourcing, and clearly attributed statements. It could use additional sources, but this is no reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Notable topic (see this search for starters), and also keep per WP:HEY; the article was rewritten by (example diff). North America1000 07:01, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is actually a pretty hard call; it is mistitled, I think. To some extent this concept forks Primitive communism as a topic, but I notice that WP does not include the communism of pioneer Christianity as part of primitive communism, so I'm not altogether sold that this is a true fork. Maybe merger could be explored. The seminal Marxist text on that is Ward's two-volume The Ancient Lowly. I was a little more disturbed to see that there is an article on Religious socialism, which would seem to be a fork of Christian socialism on the face of it, but I see in clicking through that this is actually a disambiguation page. Carrite (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Obviously WP:BEFORE hasn't been followed here. Yes, the article is in a very poor shape, but it undoubtedly meets WP:GNG. Just take a look at a Google Books search.  Omni Flames ( talk ) 10:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, wrong: the current article is actually essentially a different subject, now only the title is a bit SYNTH-ey. Guy (Help!) 18:44, 4 July 2016 (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.