Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture


 * 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. Leaning towards keep. People disagree about whether the sources available establish that there is a non-synthetic topic of "totalitarian architecture" that is more than just the sum of the architectural styles preferred by various dictatorships. We can't find a solution to this disagreement here.  Sandstein  06:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Totalitarian architecture

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't seem to actually be a notable topic in and of itself. Most sources for it are really just describing fascist architecture, and the page appears to just be a bizarre WP:SYNTH attempt to equate the architecture of communist and fascist regimes. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Paragon Deku (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect I just posted my thoughts on the article's talk page, but I'll reiterate here. Leaving aside a lack of coverage (most coverage that does exist seems to be using "Totalitarian" as a synonym for "Fascist"), this category is too broad to be useful. It just seems to be "big architecture", with the gallery on the page itself showing a variety of styles from Neo-Classicism to Brutalism to Modernism. Is the Hoover Building totalitarian because it's big and imposing? Is the Arc de Triomphe or the Reichstag? I'd recommend a redirect to Fascist architecture. BSMRD (talk) 00:46, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Or Disambiguate As has been pointed out below this could also direct to a few other terms like Stalinist architecture, so a disambiguation page may be better than a simple redirect. BSMRD (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Further Thoughts I was rather cursory with my initial vote, mostly making an argument on my personal view of the uselessness of this as a category rather than analyzing sources provided in detail, mostly because at the time there really were no sources worth evaluating. As the article has grown dramatically since this AfD was opened, and since this AfD is still open a week later, I'm going to give some more in depth reasoning for my !vote(which remains for redirection or disambiguation). Firstly, the Oxford source starts with "Supposedly", which casts some fairly large doubt on this being an actual thing. It is easy to see where Oxford draws their "supposedly" from, as after digging through the WP:REFBOMBING that has occurred as a result of this AfD, you get a few sources that are actually somewhat reliable and actually make some noises in the direction of defining what "Totalitarian architecture" is. Firstly, Marek Antoszczyszyn uses totalitarian as an aditional descriptor for his theory of "Socrealism architecture", a theory which seems fringe at best. Tony Ward's article has been discussed below, however I will reiterate here that it does not advance the theory put forth by this Wikipedia article of a unified style of "Totalitarian architecture". In fact, it says nearly the opposite, that Totalitarianism and efforts towards domination can permeate all styles of architecture. The Golomstock book is a reliable source that does put forth a thesis that "Totalitarian architecture" is real, however one source does not an article make. Moving through the less substantive sources that aren't cited more than once:
 * Cavalcanti: argues that totalitarian regimes rebuild cities to suit there needs, little commenting on a stylistic throughline.
 * Sennot: One line out of a very long Encyclopedia describing one building as "an example of totalitarian monumentality"
 * Prokopljević: Can't be verified, but the text quoted only namedrops "totalitarian architecture" once and provides no definition.
 * RFE/RL: says nothing about "totalitarian architecture", just that the Soviets were totalitarian and that they made buildings
 * Christian Science Monitor: Only uses the word "totalitarian" in reference to Communism
 * I could keep going(there are even more comprehensive examinations of these "sources" below), but more than half the sources are in Russian which I can not verify, the rest continue in much the same pattern as above. I challenge anyone reading this article or these sources to tell me what "totalitarian architecture" actually is. Maybe, if you squint, it would pass WP:GNG, but considering the amount of WP:CHERRYPICKING required to make what is a mess of WP:SYNTH even if this article could exist, it clearly should not. BSMRD (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. We now have big separate sub-pages on Stalinist architecture, Fascist architecture and Nazi architecture, but the concept of totalitarian architechutre as a whole is also well known. We have this page on eight other languages where it is much better developed . For example, here is Spanish version. There are book references about this subject, see  Here is Google Scholar. There are scholarly articles on the subject, such as  this, this, and so on. Web of Science search retrieves 83 refs such as, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is even a website by the Council of Europe, specifically about Totalitarian architecture in Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The architecture OF totalitarian regimes is not the same as totalitarian architecture being an academically or artistically recognized form of architecture. We could find hits for "architecture of democratic countries" and make a page on democratic architecture, but that's not what notability is about. Also, I don't think an article existing in another language wikispace is inherently a justification to have one here - most of those seem like glorified lists more than anything, not really the cream of the crop as far as notability for an article goes. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure. All these sources and pages are about certain architectural style. For example Stalinist architecture is not just architecture of the Soviet Union which is another and different subject. Nazi architecture is not architecture of Germany. I do not know, maybe democratic architecture is valid subject. My very best wishes (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per My very best wishes 04:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
 * Delete Agree with Paragon Deku and BSMRD. Seems to be a conflation of totalitarian regimes’ architectures rather than a topic of itself. Even other languages’ pages reference that one 1990 book and just link out to articles on Soviet Architecture, Nazi Architecture etc. Can’t see how this is notable.Vladimir.copic (talk) 11:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I can’t see the reference it comes from but the article states that these architectures are united through the use of megalomania. This seems bizarre - a building with a personality disorder? Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The ‘‘Tony Ward’’ reference when read fully includes Alcatraz and Folsom State Prison as examples and talks about “the totalitarianism of ‘Democratic architecture’” which is clearly not what this article is trying to articulate. Clearly this is not a well defined concept. Vladimir.copic (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please see the article I rewrote using academic sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The article still draws twice from the (50 year old) Ward article. (Reading the article it would probably not meet today's peer reviewer standards.) Ward clearly has an entirely different perception of the term 'totalitarian' as it is used in Totalitarian architecture. The third chapter of Ward's article is called 'The Totalitarian Architecture of Democracy". He talks extensively about US prisons and their totalitarian nature, calling them 'concentration camps of America in 1970'. Ward even writes that Americans 'are totalitarian because [they] seek to hide [their] guilt in the mythologies and structures of "Silent Majorities" and professional and technological elites.' (Sorry to quote at such length). Ward's entire article is in fact set up as a diatribe against what he sees as totalitarianism in American society (not architecture). It just baffles me that this is being drawn on so often to back up the idea of a style called 'totalitarian architecture'. At best this article uses Nazi Architecture as a segway to talking about American totalitarianism. Yet I see no references to the totalitarianism of San Quentin State Prison in this wikipedia article. This is WP:Cherrypicking. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ward's article may be a bit old, but you are also dismissing perfectly good modern sources, such as Antoszczyszyn (2017), who provides a perfectly fine definition of the topic. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  10:03, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One final point before I retire from this discussion. If the article continues to exist there should at least be some acknowledgment of those who have pushed against the flattening of various architectural styles by reducing them to their political contexts (eg Totalitarian Architecture). See Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani saying "there is no such thing [as fascist architecture], just as there is no 'communist art' or 'Catholic news'." Instead "there existed architecture under fascism" or this article saying "Brutalism suffered the consequences of communism being transmuted into totalitarianism" . Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:21, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 *  Keep This is clearly a recognised concept per the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture and Council of Europe. Our policy WP:ATD applies "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." See also WP:BROAD.  Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Important to note that Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture prefaces it’s definition with “supposedly” which seems to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the term. Council of Europe talks about the architecture of totalitarian regimes in the 20th century rather than “totalitarian architecture” as a concept. I think this distinction is what colleagues above are trying to tease out. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more evidence:
 * From Casa Scânteii to Casa Poporului and Back. Architecture as Icon of a Totalitarian Regime
 * Difficult Heritage: Various Approaches to Twentieth-Century Totalitarian Architecture
 * Endorsement effects and warning potentials: Architecture from totalitarian eras as heritage
 * Building an EU cultural route across south east Europe: the case of the ATRIUM project to convert the inconvenient heritage of totalitarian architecture...
 * Tracing Religion and Cult in the Architecture of European Totalitarian Regimes of the XX Century
 * Signs of a Totalitarian System in Architecture of Socialist Realism
 * Architecture as Propaganda in Twentieth-century Totalitarian Regimes
 * Historical Residential Architecture under Totalitarian Regimes
 * Architecture of totalitarian regimes. USSR, Italy, Germany
 * Architecture Characterising the Totalitarian Regimes of the 20th Century and Its Economic Potentials
 * My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Compelling but I think the point still stands (or is even proved by your evidence) that there is a tension between the idea of ‘architecture under a totalitarian regime’ (which mostly only includes 20th century Europe) and a concept called ‘totalitarian architecture’. Seems these are works of comparative criticism rather than furthering the idea of a movement or style called totalitarian architecture. Eritrea is certainly under a totalitarian regime - should the article detail Eritrean architecture? Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not any architecture or any buildings under totalitarian regimes. This is a specific architectural style typical only for large government-built constructions (not only buildings) in such countries. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The Fascist colonial architecture of Asmara in Eritrea is now on UNESCO's world heritage list and so merits a mention. See The Architect's Newspaper. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So again we are just talking about Italian Fascist architecture not anything to do with the Eritrean totalitarian regime. Why can’t this just be covered on Fascist architecture? Vladimir.copic (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like to note the Oxford source starts with a massive “SUPPOSEDLY” and the other source says “architecture of totalitarian regimes.” Paragon Deku (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's another 10 sources:
 * Totalitarianism, Architecture and Conscience
 * Totalitarian architecture and authoritarian control. The place of monumental architectures of totalitarian regimes in historiography
 * Modern Architecture and the Totalitarian Project
 * Architecture of the Totalitarian State
 * Literature-Architecture-Totalitarian Canon
 * Shortcomings of Political Control on Architecture in Totalitarian Regimes
 * Totalitarian architecture and urban planning
 * In Search of Totalitarian Architecture: Art-Deco in the USSR of the 1930s
 * The Architect as Totalitarian
 * Totalitarian architecture and its impact on students dormitories
 * The claims that there's no such thing are ridiculous. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:21, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, almost all these sources are referring to architecture WITHIN totalitarian societies. I could also find sources on THING in PLACE and cook up a page about PLACE’S THING (you can find cats in Finland, do we have an article on Finnish Cats? You could find sources on “the art of democratic countries,” do we need an article on democratic art?) There’s a difference between trawling for sources to get hits and actual notability, there’s a difference between “architecture of totalitarian regimes” and a discipline called “totalitarian architecture”, and no amount of WP:REFBOMBING fixes this. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, architecture in totalitarian societies, what else would it be? As that's what the sources cover then that's the nature of the topic.  If Paragon Deku has some other vision then that's their personal idea which, lacking sources, should be dismissed as irrelevant, along with their other waxy fantasies.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:57, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * “Architecture in totalitarian societies” is not deserving of its own article if it can’t be proven to be an actually notable and studied style. Otherwise it’s just a list, and no amount of refbombing helps that. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources listed above prove this this is a notable and studied style. Others have shown that an entire book has been written about this.  The Council of Europe actually organises guided tours and this is possible because the subject is literally concrete – you can touch and see the results.  In the face of such evidence, it's Paragon Deku that needs to provide some external support for their alternate view because their current argument is inadequate verging on incomprehensible.  My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * On the fence. While multiple RS have suggested a connection between totalitarianism and art/architecture, I'm not sure this could ever be much more than a directory to Fascist architecture et al. Broadening the field to Totalitarian art and architecture may enable editors to bring in more sources and build this up a little, and it's not not useful to note that scholars have drawn these comparisons and imagined all these as representatives of a type, but I also don't know if the practical functions of this page aren't also served by just discussing/linking each of these articles from the other one (eg. "Fascist architecture was similar to Stalinist architecture because they were both large and ugly and made by totalitarians" sort of thing). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 13:26, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @Roscelese Few quotes below from my source review as food for thought. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Google Scholar suggests this is a term used in academia and discussed (" Totalitarian architecture, for instance, utilised specific propagandistic and symbolically loaded icons for its purposes", ""in architecture, a totalitarian architecture suffers from a congenital unwholesomeness". ""Totalitarian architecture was supposed to achieve political benefits thanks to some perceptional codes, consciously hidden in it", "Study and research of this topic is an important link in understanding of the evolution of totalitarian architecture as part of European cultural process, and its professional origin". Would be nice to find a definition and so on, but I think there is enough here to work with. I think the nominator failed in their WP:BEFORE; I'd like to hear from User:Paragon Deku on whether they surveyed sources visible in Google Scholar, and if so, why did they judged them not useful? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 14:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already seen and discussed the English language sources you posted above and on the talk page. They’re not useful for building an article about this topic because in reality they’re either talking ABOUT the architecture of totalitarian countries (not claiming it is literally a discipline in architecture) or they are simply talking about fascist architecture. There is not some sort of hivemind that links the architecture of communist and fascist regimes and the articles are just glorified lists and will never be more than glorified lists. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , Hogwash. I have rewritten the article based on what the sources say, the term is clearly defined (ex. " Totalitarian architecture. Generally it might be defined as architecture created in frames of totalitarian State activity & under its strict control, due to its thorough character of the policy in order to strengthen & spread its ideology") and used in academic works. I recommend you withdraw this nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:49, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree that definitions beginning 'Generally it might be defined as...' or 'Supposedly the officially approved architecture...'  indicate a clearly defined concept. A little reminder to  about WP:EQ too. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is, frankly, a Synth and OR mess that adds nothing to the encyclopedia that fascist architecture doesn’t already. Just because the page is longer and more fleshed out doesn’t mean it’s notable. I could take sources that use the term “female architecture” or “democratic architecture” and do the same thing, as I and others have said several times before. Paragon Deku (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Strong Redirect (=delete).  See the extended talk page conversation.  This is a classic case of original research by synthesis.  Yes, the phrase "totalitarian architecture" can be found on Google Scholar, but there are many English phrases with hits in Google Books or Google Scholar that are not remotely Wikipedia article worthy.  The question is the notability of the claimed topic of totalitarian-architecture-in-general, which rules out 95% of the hits.  I don't plan on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but imagine for a moment articles like democratic architecture (on all architecture in all democracies across the world) or female architecture (on architecture principles allegedly in common from all women architects) or conservative architecture (architecture made by conservatives?) or Jewish architecture (connecting architecture of Israel, architecture of synagogues, and works of secular civil architects who are Jewish).  You can find hits on Google Scholar for all of these, these phrases are casually used, and you could make synthesis abominations by quoting the Google Book snippets at random to develop some "theory of conservative architecture" as your bit of original research.  Fair disclaimer, the Igor Golomstock book is actually a good source here: he wrote a book that was actually studying and comparing architecture across totalitarian regimes and finding things in common (as well as things NOT in common), and that is the topic of the entire book (not a phrase taken from a random context where it was likely just synonymous with "fascist architecture").  The problem is we need more - a single 1990 book that would fail WP:NBOOK is not really enough, we don't create WP articles for every random book or journal article's thesis.  Most of the other sources mentioned in this discussion are incredibly shallow - the Oxford page is two sentences long!  And most of the other Google hits are, again, just passing uses of the phrase, not the claimed Wikipedia topic of "connecting principle across all architects we Don't Like".  SnowFire (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, all your invented examples, i.e. conservative/female/whatever architecture are WP:OR. But we discuss a different subject, the totalitarian architecture, one that appear as a well defined topic in many RS (see above, and yes, including the book by Igor Golomstock). We also have such page in nine WP projects. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, if the article was reverted to where it was before the AFD, it would be an accurate-if-permastub article IMO that essentially treats it as a one-sentence theory by Golomstock . I'd still rather redirect it, but eh.  I think the good-faith article expansion since means it is actually in worse shape now, unfortunately.  I wish I had the time to tackle this more but per Deku's enumeration of sources used, I'd want to be a lot stricter in sourcing, only using works that explicitly have this as the main topic.
 * Procedural note: When I wrote the above !vote, all 4 invented examples were redlinks. Andrew Davidson has since turned two of them into "redirects with possibilities", meaning that he does think that separate articles could be written on them.  That's fine, of course, but it goes to emphasize that Andrew has much more radically inclusionist standards than the bulk of Wikipedians.  (Which, to be clear, is fine and not a moral failing or anything, but also means that his "Keep" vote here isn't exactly surprising if he thinks nearly any grouping is solid grounds for an article.)  SnowFire (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Sources:
 * https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/atrium-architecture-of-totalitarian-regimes-of-the-20th-century

"Council of Europe values

Studying the architecture of Europe's totalitarian regimes, both the fascist and the communist ones, is a way to enhance the European identity in its unity and diversity. The idea of Europe originated from the wounds of World War II and the fall of Fascism and Nazism. It entered a new phase after the downfall of Communism, opening the way to a broader and more comprehensive idea of a Europe based on fundamental values such as political liberty, freedom of expression and assembly, democracy and the rule of law."
 * https://www.italy-croatia.eu/documents/109827/162752/Atrium_brochure.pdf/6a9de88b-b591-47b2-f80f-9c532be2177d?t=1562234323595
 * https://www.fastcompany.com/3063559/hunting-for-the-architectural-relics-of-totalitarianism
 * Palace of the Parliament
 * https://www.amazon.com/Architecture-Propaganda-twentieth-century-totalitarian-regimes/dp/8859618355
 * https://www.netscientificjournals.com/smart-platform/?call_for_papers=totalitarian-architecture-and-urban-planning-history-and-legacy

Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d like to reiterate that just because sources discuss the architecture of totalitarian regimes does not mean there is a notable “totalitarian architecture.” You can also find sources on the architecture of democratic societies. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, if subject X (such as the architecture of totalitarian regimes) appears in many sources, it means the subject is notable. I have no judgement on architecture of democratic societies. Perhaps this is also a valid subject and such page could be created. But we discuss another page here. My very best wishes (talk) 16:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * But the point is that, as discussed in the sources, it's a descriptive phrase rather than a proper subject. I could also get hits for looking up any combo of adjective + noun, doesn't mean they all need pages. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. As presented by several participants and also as noted in the article's sources, there is enough material for the article to meet WP:GNG. In the Google Scholar, for example, there is vast material, which shows that the topic has been the subject of several academic studies. ✍A.WagnerC (talk) 16:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the article in question has been drastically altered (and not in a good way, in my opinion) since I started this AfD, I'd like to do a breakdown of the sources to explain why they do not prove this is a notable topic and why it reflects that the article is a jury rigged WP:SYNTH mess
 * The Antoszczyszyn article is a pet theory of the author comparing Nazi architecture to Soviet architecture (which, by the way, he loosely defines himself as totalitarian architecture, but more often it is written as a descriptor). There's little evidence from the article that this is based on a preexisting concept, especially considering he feels the need to loosely define it.
 * The Tony Ward article is about his own opinions on totalitariansm and how he feels it is reflected in architecture. It mention numerous American prisons as totalitarian, none of which are mentioned in the article (how convenient)
 * The Oxford reference casts doubt on the concept's existence, beginning its loose definition with "supposedly"
 * For some reason, the same Tony Ward article is cited again.
 * The Igor source is draw a thesis on artwork as a whole, not just architecture. There's no preview so I can't analyze it further, but considering the vague conflation its used to support, I seriously wonder how heavily it was analyzed in the first place.
 * The council of Europe source only describes "the architecture OF totalitarian regimes." The phrase "totalitarian architecture" doesn't appear a single time.
 * I can't read Ukranian so I can't vouch much for or against this source, but I will say that there seems to be a single cherrypicked quote and not much else coming from this one.
 * I'm getting a deadlink on the source on North Korea, but this again seems to just be a cherrypicked quote of the word "totalitarian" being used to describe architecture rather than a reference to an established topic in and of itself
 * The Sasha S. Lozanova source is a deadlink for me, and the title reads "architecture of European totalitarian regimes," not "totalitarian architecture" as its own discipline
 * A single mention in a book largely about social media in which the words "totalitarian architecture" appear, which vaguely explains that it used symbols for propaganda purposes. Nice to know all military buildings (and most government buildings, for that matter) are part of the totalitarian architectural tradition, then.
 * Another source by Antoszczyszyn, this seems to be his topic of study so I'd assume as he defines "totalitarian architecture" it's within the framework of his own works rather than architecture broadly, especially since he continues to define it.
 * The Esempi di Architettura source may quite literally be one of the only decent sources here, but even still it seems to be describing the architecture of a laundry list of countries grouped together rather than an established and studied field of architecture
 * I have no access to the Dennis source.
 * The council of europe source is redundantly cited again
 * The Schwab source uses the phrase once to describe another organization's calling for photography of architecture in totalitarian countries. It hardly describes it beyond that.
 * Overall, the article is a complete mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH that was (in my opinion) hastily cobbled together to save the article, especially since the repetition of sources and usage of sources that only mention the phrase briefly in passing gives off the feeling of throwing stuff at a wall to see what sticks. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just filling in some gaps from above:
 * Golomstock seems to be the only source that does make an argument for similarities across totalitarian art. I looked at some reviews of this and this seems to hold-up. Important that this source speaks of art as a whole not necessarily arguing for a style of totalitarian architecture. My library does have this book but I doubt I will get it out to prove this.
 * Extensive search for the Prokopljevic (North Korea) article provides nothing. Not even on the journal's website. Perhaps this was redacted by the journal?
 * Looks like the Lozanova sourse is written in Russia (or using Cyrillic) or appears in a Russian (Cyrillic?) language journal. Even looking at the English abstract the source wouldn't appear to be arguing for a style of totalitarian architecture but instead is a comparative study of the architecture of 20th century European totalitarian regimes.
 * Antoszczyszyn does further a weak definition of totalitarian architecture for the purposes of his paper which is mainly how the state architecture of Nazi Germany was viewed after the war. The paper is not furthering the idea of totalitarian architecture. I don't think an obscure paper of one academic that briefly offers a definition is really an RS for this topic.
 * Tracked down the Dennis Doordan source. No mention of totalitarianism on page 122 of the 2002 edition (it's a chapter about the Lincoln Memorial). Page 120 does use the term totalitarian architecture twice without offering a real definition (other than the strange idea that meglomania is a feature of totalitarian architecture). Seems to be used just to refer to Soviet and Nazi architecture and other than this brief reference the architectures of these regimes are spoken about separately. In fact Doordan even says 'claccicism cannot be identified exclusively with one political ideology'.
 * It is not that certain people have not used the term 'totalitarian architecture'. We can see many have used this when it is useful to group totalitarian regimes' architectures together. The issue is that no RS seems to clearly define what 'totalitarian architecture' is as a style with examples, traits, its history etc. Instead editors seem to be ctrl+F RS for uses of this term. If this was a real architectural style, wouldn't there be a book or dedicated work about it? Instead we are relying on passing references in works about other things. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:07, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.routledgehandbooks.com/doi/10.4324/9780429328435-3 "The Routledge Companion to Italian Fascist Architecture" The chapter discusses analogies, it is about 'something'. If you do like the name 'totalitarian' perhaps 'architecture of European dictatorships of the first half of the 20th century'.
 * https://uedxx.net/about/ is about 'Urbanism'.

Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on sources. All or almost all sources currently on the page are good, and they say specifically about the totalitarian architecture as a coherent subject. We can expand this page similar to the French version, i.e. make subsections dedicated to specific countries and include a lot more sources used on pages like Stalinist architecture. I do not have time for point-to-point responses, but the comparative analysis of "architectures of European totalitarian regimes" obviously belongs to the subject of "totalitarian architecture", for example. My very best wishes (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All I’ll say is there’s a reason pages like pink cat get deleted even though we have plenty of sources that describe pink cats. Paragon Deku (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meaning that you can call any page you do not like "pink cat" and have it deleted? My very best wishes (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Meaning that descriptor + noun getting hits in sources does not make it page worthy. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it does not, and here is an example: . Unless this is an established subject, as follows from the usage in multiple RS. For example, enzyme kinetics qualify as a page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out, the evolving state of this article makes this discussion quite fraught. Regardless, it seems the ultimate intention for this article is to link out to other pages on state’s architectures (eg Stalinist, Nazi, North Korean etc) and provide a briefer description of their architecture than exists in their substantive article. This will be headed by a couple of paragraphs cobbled together from problematic sources (see above WP:Cherrypicking) that fabricates some kind of unifying theory of totalitarian architecture. I cannot see what use this kind of article is to anyone. I think we need to remember WP:NOTCATALOG. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:53, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is common practice to improve a page during standing AfD. No, of course that was not anyone's intention just to link out to other pages. These other pages can be viewed as sub-pages of this page. This is also very common. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well good luck reducing Soviet Architecture to a subset of totalitarian architecture despite multiple RS describing this style as unique and distinctive (eg not just the same as Nazi Architecture).   I do worry that the initial point of this nomination has been buried which I think mainly comes down to WP:BIAS. The article basically tries to make some kind of equivalence between Nazism and Communism. This is not just my opinion but is backed up by critics. See here that critics worry these kind of terms (here totalitarian art) are a left over of western Cold War propaganda. This kind of attitude is spoken about with specific reference to architecture here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, one can not dismiss well known concepts by famous historians (see The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt) as propaganda. Your comment shows your bias. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Just need to point out I am not furthering a personal opinion re propaganda. I am pointing towards what critics have written. No one is denying the commonly understood concept of totalitarianism here. Vladimir.copic (talk) 14:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm leaning delete (or maybe redirect). The discussion above reminds me a lot of Articles for deletion/Collapse (medical). Finding WP:Reliable sources about "collapse" in a medical context is not difficult, but those sources do not address a single cohesive topic—not even a WP:BROAD one—and consequently, that article was deleted. summarized this kind of problem fairly well : the bag-of-words approach to judging notability fails for technical topics. I think, , and  have made a fairly convincing case that the same issue applies here. I am however perfectly willing to change my mind if it can be demonstrated that this is, in fact, a thing (where's WP:NOTATHING when you need it?). TompaDompa (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Your example defeats your argument. The collapse does exist as a matter of fact. We just have it under a better medical name, i.e Syncope (medicine). This is a hugely important subject. My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No actually, that's not it at all. You seem to have misunderstood the very crux of that discussion. Syncope and collapse are not synonymous, which is the reason that the outcome of the discussion wasn't to redirect to Syncope (medicine). That was very much something that the discussion revolved around. The issue is that the term "collapse", in a medical context, can refer to several vastly dissimilar concepts which do not form a collective WP:BROADCONCEPT. Syncope is one of the things it can refer to, but so is overexertion and falling for reasons unknown (both without loss of consciousness). In a medical context, "collapse" is not a thing—and consequently, trying to write an article about it ends up being a WP:SYNTH nightmare because it rests upon what is basically an equivocation. TompaDompa (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course the result was not redirect because Collapse must be a disambig. page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Collapse wasn't the article under discussion. The article under discussion was Collapse (medical), and that could have conceivably been redirected to Syncope (medicine). TompaDompa (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Same with Collapse (medical). It can mean syncope, Circulatory collapse, Lung collapse, etc. That would be a dismbig. page unless we already had it on page Collapse. This is completely unrelated to this AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * One could equally well say "Totalitarian architecture can mean Fascist architecture, Stalinist architecture, Nazi architecture, etc." Does this likewise need to be a disambiguation page, then? Well, that would depend on whether "totalitarian architecture" is a thing, now wouldn't it? That's the relevance to this AfD: in a medical context, "collapse" is not a single cohesive subject and we can't have an article like Collapse (medical) because that isn't a topic. Similarly, the argument has been made that in an architectural context, "totalitarian architecture" is not a single cohesive subject and that we therefore shouldn't have a Totalitarian architecture article because that's not a topic. TompaDompa (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, there is a big difference between different meanings of the same word (like "collapse") and sub-subjects of the same subject. This is the latter. See this page in French WP. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Considering one of the cited sources in the article refers to prison architecture as totalitarian, and the fact that none of the definitions given that aren’t incredibly vague correlate, I’d say it’s very similar. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:38, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, here is an additional aspect of this that needs to be described on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * An anti-communist outlet discussing how a former Soviet state in passing categorized soviet statues as “totalitarian” does not lend anything to the concept of it as an architectural style. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubts, this is an excellent RS. There are many more on this sub-subject ,,,, plus our pages like Demolition of monuments to Vladimir Lenin in Ukraine. Now, as this source say, "The law On the Prohibition of Propagation of Communism or Any Other Totalitarian System Through The Names of All Public Buildings, Structures and Facilities has been in force in Poland since 1 April 2016. Since 2017, this law has allowed Soviet monuments to be demolished — all but those standing on soldiers’ graves." Here is a comment by an expert anthropologist: . My very best wishes (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is all circumstantial and hardly related to the topic, adding this to the article is essentially WP:REFBOMBING. Paragon Deku (talk) 19:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Two points: (1) I am in disbelief that My very best wishes took issue with me pointing to sources that suggest that terms like totalitarian art are a product of western Cold War propaganda then goes and cites a LITERAL western Cold War propaganda outlet to make a point. (2) All the other sources cited above suffer from the same issues that we have previously spoken about. They usually speak about a specific regimes’ architecture, do not offer a definition or description of ‘totalitarian architecture’ and only incidentally use the phrase.Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * There is indeed a big difference between different meanings of the same term and sub-subjects of the same subject. You're asserting that totalitarian architecture is a single cohesive subject with the sub-subjects Fascist architecture, Stalinist architecture, and Nazi architecture. Several other editors are saying that that assertion constitutes WP:SYNTH, because there is no agreed-upon meaning of "totalitarian architecture" and no recognized architectural style of that name (in other words, they're saying that there are different meanings of the same term). What I'm saying is that I'm not persuaded by your assertions that this is indeed a single cohesive subject about a common architectural style. TompaDompa (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * "You're asserting...". No, I did not assert anything. The cited sources did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Except a detailed breakdown of the sources proves that’s not the case. Paragon Deku (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is getting ridiculous. Even a dictionary has such item, but you say it does not? My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This reference was already dealt with above. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:07, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is just a drive-by comment: maybe the correct title for this article is "Totalitarianism and architecture"? The link between the two is certainly notable and article worthy worth mention on Wikipedia, but if the sources seem to fall short of establishing it as a style, per se, this seems like the appropriate title. — Goszei (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * This is not about establishing a link between between totalitarianism and architecture. This is about "Totalitarian architecture" being a sufficiently established terminology and a subject, as follows from publications by Oxford Reference  and others. My very best wishes (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If your best reference starts with "supposedly" this is clearly not a worthwhile topic. BSMRD (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate or delete: architecture existed under totalitarian regimes, but, per review of sources presented in this AfD, a unified style does not appear to exist. The article, as edited during this AfD, attempted to synthesise such a concept, which is not an appropriate basis for an article. So deletion is the logical choice. Alternatively, a disambig page could point to: Fascist architecture; Stalinist architecture; etc. --K.e.coffman (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, 'no', it was described as an "international style" of architecture in Oxford reference . However, according to some other sources, this is an example of eclecticism in architecture, i.e. a combination of Neo-Classicism and Monumentalism and so on. united by the purpose of spreading the ideology of such regimes (this is their common main feature). Also note that Nazi architecture is included in our List of architectural styles. Regardless, I do not see why not being an architectural style is a reason for deletion. We have many pages that are not about a specific architectural style, but about something else. Synthesis and comparative analysis - yes, sure, but this is done by cited sources. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are just describing Architectural propaganda - itself a problematic article. I don’t see why both of these articles cannot be merged into architecture seeing as all you wish to describe seems to be basically the function of public architecture. The pyramids, cathedrals, mosques even libraries would fall into your idea here of spreading ideology. Vladimir.copic (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I can only say that this page, Totalitarian architecture, is supported by references much much better than Architectural propaganda. I can not exclude that Architectural propaganda might me merged into this page (not the other way around), but it should be a separate discussion. The reason: Of the note, only totalitarian regimes consider the entire culture, including all arts as propaganda. That point was emphasized by some scholars of totalitarian regimes (e.g. "Russia under the Bolshevik regime" by Pipes, etc.) My very best wishes (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s certainly an… interesting POV to bring into this discussion. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I was suggesting that totalitarian architecture could be merged into the Architecture article if other editors believe there is something of value in this page that should be retained (I do not). Just a cursory look at the introduction to the architecture page clearly shows how architecture has always been used by ruling powers to display political power or ideology. This is simply a function (or result) of public architecture. Without, as you admit, a unifying style, there is nothing tying together totalitarian architecture as the lack of RS demonstrates. It’s not too late to change your vote. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * If anywhere, the current content should be merged to Totalitarianism. — Goszei (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Amusingly enough that section mentions quite literally one of the only structures I think could be considered innately totalitarian (the panopticon, although I suppose all prisons count to a degree) and demonstrates how it’s a term extended to totalitarian country’s art rather than a discipline. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I mean the first paragraph of Totalitarianism is pretty incoherent (using an example from Orwell’s 1984!!) and should probably be deleted or revised in light of this discussion (further proving totalitarian architecture is not a thing). But Paragon Deku is right re the panopticon. Probably a good topic for a grad research paper though - not an encyclopaedia. Vladimir.copic (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite interestingly, I agree to an extent with the source discussed earlier that prisons would be totalitarian architecture (as in, architecture serving a totalitarian goal), but most of the sources really are just describing architecture within totalitarian countries or trying to draw comparisons between soviet and Nazi architecture. I think if such a phrase would be a notable topic, it would be as a functionally totalitarian structure rather than an aesthetic extension of a totalitarian state. But as you said, that’s most likely more of a WP:FRINGE thesis for a grad paper on sociology or architecture rather than something deserving an entire page. Paragon Deku (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * @My Very Best Wishes: The concept does not appear to exist, per review of available sources: i.e. "supposedly" in the definition. Hence my reference to WP:SYNTH as to what the article (as being edited during this AFD) represents. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, simply the presence of the entry in A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture, with references - shows that the subject does exist. But this is not the only source on the subject. There are currently 20+ RS on the page saying that the subject exists. I do not know if this subject qualify as a "concept". I would say yes, but even if not, this is not required. A lot of WP pages are not about concepts, and they should not be. My very best wishes (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment I am doubting about the status of totalitarian architecture as a separate and notable subject, but maybe the article doesn't have be deleted. Perhaps it could be renamed into Architecture of totalitarian regimes or something like that? I also think broadening the topic to Totalitarian art and architecture or similar is not a bad idea. By the way, I am completely opposed to the idea of a "democratic architecture" article. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * At the first glance, it seems that "totalitarian architecture" and "Architecture of totalitarian regimes" are exactly same thing, hence the renaming would be fine, and it does produce hits . However, Stalinist architecture (a part of this subject) is not the same as Architecture of the Soviet Union. I assume that is why the Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture (see above) uses "Totalitarian architecture". My very best wishes (talk) 00:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Of course 'Democratic Architecture' gets fours times as many hits as 'Totalitarian Architecture' not that I think this is a good metric for notability nor that a 'Democratic Architecture' page should exist. Renaming the page Architecture of totalitarian regimes would not mediate the problems already enumerated at length above and would still ultimate be WP:SYNTH. We have perfectly good individual pages for the regime's distinctive architectures that would be discussed. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It well could be that "Democratic architecture" is also a valid subject because there are books about it, but we discuss here a very different subject.My very best wishes (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Summarizing several opinions - this text  seems to be unnecessary in a book about Fascist architecture. Poor Routlege. Xx236 (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep, as there are enough sources available to meet GNG.Jackattack1597 (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not about number of sources but rather what the sources actually say, see WP:REFBOMBING
 * This not REFBOMBING because the sources are exactly on the subject (see this discussion, for example) and do not duplicate each other. Many sources are scholarly publications. My very best wishes (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s funny, because several of the sources are clearly using similar vague definitions and some are quite literally redundantly cited twice. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep I added multiple reliable sources that directly address the topic. Passes WP:GNG. -- Renat 06:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t most of those sources refute that it’s an actual concept? Paragon Deku (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not know. And it does not matter. A subject might be controversial, but still notable and suitable for a stand-alone article. -- Renat 07:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * All of this WP:REFBOMBING has made this page completely incomprehensible. There is no other text that has described ‘totalitarian architecture’ in the way this article does. More than ever this article is WP:SYNTH. Also amusing to think that a concept that has no commonly recognised definition or usage and has been refuted by critics can be labelled “controversial”. Most people would simply conclude it doesn’t exist. Vladimir.copic (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the cited sources and other versions of this page on eight other languages describe this subject in the same way. Russian version even makes it more general as the totalitarian architecture being a part of the totalitarian aesthetics. Every definition of every subject in social sciences (terrorism, genocide, whatever) has been disputed, but it only makes these subjects more notable. My very best wishes (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To be honest, this page and AfD discussion have left me completely disillusioned with WP. Absolutely no intellectual rigour or reading of sources. Just editors going to different search engines, typing "totalitarian architecture" and then WP:REFBOMBING. The use of the Dalrymple article is just intellectual malpractice. Completely misrepresents the article and the way the term totalitarian is used which - like the Ward source - is completely different to how the WP article uses it. I assume that "no consensus" will be called for this soon and this terrible Frankenstein's monster of an article will live on. WP will be a lot poorer for it. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m genuinely hoping whoever has to take up the task of closing this AfD realizes how little effort is put in on the part of most of these Keep votes to actually look at sourcing. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per others above. Side-note, this has been in AfD for more than 7 days now. Either keep or make a no consensus call soon please! Dr. Universe (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t think it’s proper to implore for a close in your favor just because we’ve approached the 7 day discussion mark. Sometimes the backlog takes time to work through, especially for a contentious discussion like this. Paragon Deku (talk) 22:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a phrase with meaning reflected by coverage in sources. The meaning may be a bit fuzzy, but we don't shy away from having articles because the subject takes that additional work to clearly encapsulate. This is not an ambiguous term so much as it is a broad one susceptible to different interpretations, but so is "Totalitarianism" itself. BD2412  T 02:56, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment on that 'supposedly' Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture definition that so much hinges on. Seeing as this is a tertiary source I have tracked down the secondary sources it references:
 * P. Adam (1992) - this is Peter Adam's book Art of the Third Reich. The book is entirely about Nazi art and makes 4 passing references to either 'totalitarian regimes' or 'totalitarian systems'. It never puts forward a definition or idea of totalitarian architecture and the term is just used as a term to refer to other contemporary european dictatorships. The book even pushes back against a unified style of totalitarian architecture saying 'Neoclassicism has long been the language of political power. It was by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems. It was the official style of many countries.' (p223)
 * Council of Europe (1995) - this is a reference to the catalogue of a 1995 exhibition called Art and Power: Europe Under the Dictators 1930-1945. I can't find a copy of the catalogue online to read but the exhibition contained the work of Salvador Dali, Lucio Fontana, Paul Klee, Oskar Kokoschka, El Lissitzky, Joan Miro, Pablo Picasso, Kazimir Malevich and Vladimir Tatlin. Not an exibition focused on architecture or even art from totalitarian regimes.
 * Spotts (2002) - this is Frederic Spotts' book Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Again can't get a copy of the book to have a check but this is a book dedicated to Nazi art (not architecture exclusively) and I'm guessing wouldn't devote a great deal of time explaining a theory of totalitarian architecture.
 * Looking at this the 'supposedly' makes a lot of sense. Vladimir.copic (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2021 (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.