Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was speedy deleted ( 19:07, 2005 Apr 6 Neutrality deleted "Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family" (Per VfD) ) - IceKarma 14:16, 2005 Apr 7 (UTC)

Russian Communist attempt to abolish the family
Truly the finest in original research I've seen in quite a few Special:Newpages trawls. POV original research rant, not saved by its references; delete. - David Gerard 22:00, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this crap. RickK 23:44, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this imbroglio reaça José San Martin 00:12, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Firebug 01:52, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - all of the above.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 05:51, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete extreme POV (both in title and content). — Sesel wa  05:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge any useful content with Soviet Union or Communism or whatever. Sjakkalle 10:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Rewrite NPOV - this is an excerpt based upon a 1975 Law Journal Article. This is the basis for the no fault divorce reform but must be rewritten since this is a source article.
 * Rewrite There is very little material that I have been able to find about the true events that occurred when the soviets banned the bourgeoise institution of the family. This article contains some useful references that should be followed up, i.e. not deleted, and the contributor encouraged to share more of his knowledge, particularly if he has books at his disposal. Matt Stan 23:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the primary reason you haven't found material about "the true events that occurred when the soviets banned the bourgeoise institution of the family" is that the Soviets never did any such thing. The USSR committed enough actual atrocities that we don't have to charge them with made-up ones. Firebug 06:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Check out Zhenotdel Matt Stan 21:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * KeeP Simply because one does not want to read the truth about the actions of the Bolshiveks does not take away the legitimacy of this article. This is not the place for revisionist history.
 * This excerpt was moved out of the Fathers' Rights discussion. It is missing the reference to the peer-reviewed law journal article by Bolas, D. A., “No-Fault Divorce: Born in the Soviet Union, Journal of Famly Law, Volume Fourteen, Number One, pp 31 – 59. This is consider the seminal article on the history of no-fault divorce. Agwiii 17:15, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Excellent! Agwiii, I made your KEEP vote into Keep. Making it capitals doesn't get you double the votes. :) --Woohookitty 17:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Woohookitty, please don't write such silly things in public. I change "Soapboxish" to "Excellent!" Bolas' article is the definitive history of no-fault divorce. It was published in a reputable, referreed law journal. What you object to are the facts. The Bolas law journal article is not POV. This is clearly an area in which you do not know the facts and are only echoing your social prejudices.


 * By the way - I know this is probably the wrong place to ask, but can we get neutral parties to overview the content of the main Fathers' rights article? While the movement is newsworthy enough to deserve an article, the existing article is hopelessly POV, consisting largely of propaganda couched in weasel words. (Examples: "This has led to speculation by fathers' rights campaigners that there are elements in society that would rather have a child brought up in a single parent household by the mother even when the father is available to share in the upbringing of his child." And "The issue for fathers' rights activists is not one of mens' rights versus feminism, as some would suppose, and fathers' rights activists have been at pains to point out that the adversarial family law system can occasionally operate as badly, if not worse, for mothers who are separated from their children by hostile fathers". Both of which I have removed, along with unsourced comments trying to tar no-fault divorce by comparison with Leninist atrocities.) I'd like to see this entire article rewritten from a NPOV. Firebug 18:24, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Then why don't you re-write it as I suggested in it's talk page? --Spinboy 22:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete --Spinboy 22:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a patchwork article comprised almost entirely of copypastes from three or four other websites, and a quick Google search found two distinctly different sides of this issue. This only presents one of them, marking it as POV as well.  Very little of this is salvagable.  Trylobyte 01:13, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP The source is a refereed Law Journal. As even my 9 year old knows, a Google search does not constitute research. There are not different sides to the facts - this is not an opinion piece. Would you argue so emotionally if the topic were "Russian Communist attempt to abolish war?" I think not. Sorry Trylo, but your point is moot. Agwiii 08:46, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Vote Change to Merge and Rewrite - The article's title itself is loaded, and while the facts don't change, the presentation spins them towards a direct, distinct POV that is at odds with several other equally or more prominent sources. Here's one: International Struggle and the Marxist Tradition, Vol. 1  Yes, the writer is a Marxist.  However, the writer of the source the article cites is a Russian woman, the group most affected and thus the most likely to be biased, as can be seen Here.  Both sources are likely biased in opposite directions, but the article is very clearly POV favoring the second article.  Thus, perhaps it can be saved, but it needs a serious overhaul to be able to do that.  Trylobyte 01:59, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted, nonsense. Neutralitytalk 02:08, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - we don't need to be information censors. 216.153.214.94 02:57, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.