Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks)


 * 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. The only deletion argument of relevance is Mikkalai's, because he was the only one to address the work done by Soman; consensus among those that have kept up is clearly for keeping. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Revolutionary Communists (Bolsheviks)

 * del nonverifiable. The only reference to a bizarre source mentions it only in a footnote. Google gives nothing. On a personal note, I find it unbelievable a Russian could have concocted such a name. `'mikkanarxi 21:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Xdenizen 23:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Little is known about the group, and its actual existence has been doubted." 'Nuff said. Fan-1967 23:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't see the point of the article, nothing links here!--Mike
 * Speedy Delete There is already a bolsheviks article scope_creep 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep, per EXCELLENT work done on the article. No reliable sources, and the article has nothing to say. In fact, the article indicates that there will probably never be anything to say about this topic. OfficeGirl 01:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Another example of how pre-www structures fail google tests. The article hold relevance. Little is known about the outfit, but the article is relevant out of two points: 1) The draft programme of SRC(b) was distrubted throughout the world by pro-Chinese and pro-Albanian groups. It was generally referred to as the voice of the internal USSR Left Opposition. 2) Although it cannot be confirmed, at least not by myself, whether the SRC(b) was a real organization or just a Chinese propaganda hoax, there definately was existed a pro-Maoist, student based, opposition in the USSR at the time. For obvious reasons, it was completly clandestine and there is little written about it. If anyone could taken on the task, this article could be rewritten to deal with Maoism in the USSR in general (as to opposed to just the SRC(b)), but I strongly urge not to delete it. --Soman 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: I can add more sources, although the all refer to the same draft programme. I included that link which is in the article now, since it went further than just stating the name of the group. --Soman 14:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)**Note: The group is mentioned at and.--Soman 14:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The original document can be accessed at the Schezuan University Library. see . --Soman 14:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Please read Reliable Sources. The criticism that "pre-www structures fail google tests" may well be valid. However, that is not a strong enough argument for us to keep an article with Unverifiable information. Fan-1967 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can did up print sources, but it will take some time. --Soman 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Query: I am impressed to see your initiative. Would you consider userfying the article to give yourself ample time to work on it?  Then you could re-post the article when you got it into good shape.  That would solve all issues being discussed here. OfficeGirl 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OfficeGirl is right. When you write a meaningful, properly referenced article, no one will object. Right now the article is plain false. The problem is not in google, the problem is in the author, who probably does not fully understand wikipedia policies: Verifiability and Reliable Sources. `'mikkanarxi 19:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And just to add a point which may not be clear to a newer editor: we will not keep an article in expectation (or hope) that sources will be added at some point in the future. If reliable sources are not available today, the article needs to be removed until such time as verification is available. Fan-1967 21:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'll try to rewrite the article today itself, or possibly tomorrow. The following can be verified, with reliable sources (like PLA congress documents):
 * At the 1964 congress of PLA a Draft Programme of SRC(b) was presented
 * In PLA congress protocols it is mentioned that a SRC(b) delegation attended. (No names are of course mentioned, for security reasons)
 * The SRC(b) document was distributed amongst pro-China/Albania groups worldwide.
 * The SRC(b) document was, in summary, a critique of the economic policies of Chrusthev.
 * The SRC(b) document in many ways functioned as a program document of the Albanian/Chinese in their criticism of CPSU during the initial phase of the Sino-Soviet split, explaining why they regarded CPSU as revisionist.
 * The SRC(b) played a role in Albanian propaganda at the time, giving PLA legitimacy in terms of their relations to Soviet communists. (CPSU rhetoric at the time was that CPC/PLA were splitters from the Communist Movement. Using the SRC(b), the PLA responded that it was the CPSU that had diverted from Marxism-Leninism, and that the SRC(b) rallied genuine Marxist-Leninists in the USSR).
 * At least one author (the link given in the article) has questioned whether the SRC(b) was an actual organization, and claims that it was just an Albanian propaganda hoax. It should be noted that the author in question makes a rather general statement, essentially saying that since he never heard of the SRC(b), then it didn't exist.

What I will not be able to answer is the following question: --Soman 10:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Strong keepSoman has shown that the group existed in some form. However, I don't think one can be sure they were in the USSR, they may well have been in Albania or in both places.FasterPussycatWooHoo 11:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Was the SRC(b) a genuine organization or an Albanian hoax? The article still holds relevance with either answer. At this point we can only conclude that there is speculation over the SRC(b). If anyone is willing to plunge into KGB archives to find out more about the Maoist student opposition in the USSR, I would highly welcome it, but its a task I cannot physically do myself. Of course such a group would have been completly clandestine, perhaps working as a secret fraction within the established Soviet structures (like radical Maoists in China today). Official Soviet sources would not reveal its existance.
 * Comment: Swedish translation of the Programme is availible at the Royal Library, Stockholm. see --Soman 10:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment French version in full at, see also, mentioned in , , , . --Soman 11:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. OK, I'm convinced after looking at the refs that the entity existed, if only perhaps in the minds of some people. Since the Soviet and Albanian archives are now somewhat accesible, the article - which is pretty poor at this point - could theoretically be improved. It's hard to judge the notability of the group, because to English speakers it had only a hidden existance in a far-away  place. But I would default to the least destructive option, which is Keep. Herostratus 05:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Looking at the refs one may only be convinces that the author is going to do original research from some historical documents. Until the contributor provides a legible reference from an expert historian, the article is a no-go. `'mikkanarxi 06:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, this would not be a case or OR. The article would present that the Albanians claimed existance of group, a document was distributed and there would be an open speculation of the actual existance of the group (based on lack of sources). Not all articles at wikipedia give complete answers to everthing about a subject. --Soman 10:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You seem to misunderstand the term OR (see WP:NOR). Unless the topic is covered by an expert (historian or reporter or writer), collecting bits and pieces (marginal mentioning, texts of documents, etc.) all over internet is OR. Only a professional may evaluate all these. Our job is to report findings of professionals, not to do own historical search. `'mikkanarxi 02:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, now appears to be well sourced (given the circumstances) and well done. Sandstein 22:28, 10 November 2006 (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.