Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Totalitarian architecture (2nd 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. This does not preclude editorial discretion from being applied to move to draft, or rewrite. Stifle (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Totalitarian architecture
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article had an AfD nearly two years ago, which was closed with no consensus due to the possibility of there being non-WP:SYNTH information related to the topic. I am here to once again argue that no such information exists, and that this is better off being a redirect to fascist architecture or a disambiguation at most. As it exists, the page basically just argues that "totalitarian architecture" is an architecture that involves big buildings made by "totalitarian" governments. Practically all the sourcing is simply tertiary mentions, with no elaboration on what exactly this field of architecture is supposed to be. After these issues were brought up, the article was subject to a WP:REFBOMB, which did little to prove notability. Given that all the original issues of bad sourcing and synthesis exist, and that attempts in the past two years to prove notability have failed, I'm suggesting a redirect once again. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 02:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to fascist architecture per comments in the previous AFD: this is a textbook case of original research via synthesis. I have reviewed the edits made in the two years since, and they don't add any new sources that weren't there at the time of the original AFD.  I strongly encourage voters to review WP:SYNTH.  Suppose someone made an article titled "Aus Architecture" that combined real, referenced facts about architecture of Austria, Australia, and Austin, Texas.  You could get 100 references easily, but it's still synthesis: you'd need a source tying these disparate architecture strands together into a single topic.  Actually, multiple sources.  Architecture of Australia, Architecture of Austria, etc. are valid topics, but this container category is made-up.  Well, that's exactly what this article is.  Fascist architecture is a valid topic, Stalinist architecture is a valid topic, and this article awkwardly tries to make a joint topic that combines them.  "Keep" votes in past AFDs have cited the term coming up in Google Scholar & Google Book searches, but when I actually inspected and read these references two years ago, they were almost always used strictly in the sense of Fascist Architecture, not in the sense of a joint Nazi-Italian Fascist-Soviet combined architecture style.  It makes as much sense as democratic architecture or royalist architecture that tries to combine disparate styles that have nothing to do with other via the government involved.  Now, per the previous AFD, there is one asterisk I have to point out: we do have one source that actually treats this topic in the way this Wikipedia article does, Igor Golomstock's Totalitarian Art, which does indeed use the term in the sense of a collective art style that stretches across all totalitarian governments, and seems to investigate the idea somewhat.  Okay, fine.  But...  it's one book by one author on a topic where there are tens of thousands of books and tens of thousands of scholars.  If Glomstock's book is really felt to be so incredibly relevant, make an article on just his book, first.  Wikipedia should use the term the way that 90% of the actual sources use it - as a redirect to fascist architecture, which is really what is being talked about.  SnowFire (talk) 03:42, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. I do not see any valid reason for deletion. This is a well-known and well-sourced subject. This page exists on 7 other languages. This is not a "WP:Coatrack": the concept of totalitarian architecture as a whole appear in currently cited references on the page (for example references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37). Just having an AfD discussion in a past is not a reason for deletion. No, this article is not a WP:REFBOMB. Why it would be? Yes, Fascist architecture are Stalinist architecture are valid topics and they are also legitimate sub-pages of this page. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT, [i]f editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page, and per WP:NEXIST, Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. And, we actually have sources that have discussed this topic, including "Totalitarianism, Architecture and Conscience", "Difficult Heritage: Various Approaches to Twentieth-Century Totalitarian Architecture", "The Constituent Power of Architecture", as well as many, many more articles and books that have been published. This is also not simply equivalent to fascist architecture, as alleged by SnowFire above, as academics point out totalitarian architecture as having been created by Communist governments (Here's whole article on this very connection). The claim that that no such information exists about a well-documented topic is denialism at worst, and a failure to conduct a WP:BEFORE at best. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 04:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As discussed previously, this would just be refbombing. You can find perfectly similar sources on architecture and black Americans, architecture and democracy, architecture and feminism, etc etc etc. None of these would indicate that such things as Black Architecture, Democratic Architecture, or Feminist architecture actually exist as their own independent disciplines. As with any other art form, architecture is often viewed in the context of its creation (or creators), but that doesn’t mean it can be verified as its own discipline. This is always just a synthesis play that ignores the context of sources and ends up making an incomprehensible slurry of unrelated info. Paragon Deku (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is an argument that the title is wrong, not that there is no notable subject here. Of course Architecture and feminism is a notable topic; so many sources discuss it, and I hope to see that redlink turn to blue. When one encounters an article about the intersection of architecture and feminism, but objects to the title of "feminist architecture", the way to change that is to make a move request, not to try to delete the article for failing to have a perfect title. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:36, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feminism and modern architecture is the page, for the record. And this isn't simply an issue with the title- the entire article as it exists is arguing that a specific architectural style of totalitarian regimes and therefore a school of architecture is extant. If we were to make a page on architecture and totalitarianism, it would have to be an entirely separate page, because the content of the page as it exists is bunk. Paragon Deku (talk) 02:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep - there are many published academic papers and books on this topic, with coverage of socialist and other regimes. Therefore a redirect to Fascist architecture seems like a busted flush and a contradiction in terms. That said the page needs more work and likely considerable cleanup to refocus onto examples of architecture and away from puff (for example quotes from Orwell in his novel don't add anything IMO). As it stands, I think the page would likely be more informative with 90% less text and perhaps splitting up by country. I don't envy those taking on the challenge - which looks difficult to me, but an encyclopedic concept. JMWt (talk) 05:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC) I am now persuaded by the arguments below (which were eventually written in a way that I could understand) by PaulT2022 that there should be WP:TNT and/or sent to Draft because this is a mess that doesn't properly represent the sources that exist. Which is a shame - I can see there's been quite an effort to get it to this stage. JMWt (talk) 16:23, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT My view on this has evolved since the last discussion. The article as it stands is a mess of WP:SYNTH probably due to refbombing during the last AfD and includes many irrelevant sources. There is something icky about the way sources are being used to present this as a settled architectural style and idea when actually most of the academic secondary sources seem to be saying "is this really an architectural style?" (see Hokerberg: Although we must dismiss the idea of specific totalitarian architectural styles...; A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture: Supposedly the officially approved architecture of...; Mijolla-Mellor & Tuncel Et peut-on parler d’une architecture qui portera des éléments stylistiques qu’on pourrait définir en tant que « totalitaires »?) Other academic sources devolve into strange psychogeography which I don't know how to treat (see Barshack Totalitarian architecture does not allow for interpretation as a mode of contemplating the collective body which assumes its distance from the social, a mode of contemplating the dead which presupposes their relegation to a separate realm). I cannot take seriously any opinion that references that bizarre 70s Tony Ward article about American prison architecture (unless they haven't read it which is another reason not to take them seriously).
 * However, reference works (listed below) do make use of the term totalitarian architecture. The article as it currently stands does not reflect at all how the term is used in sources. So, in true totalitarian style, I propose we completely bulldoze this article and build a grand article in its place.
 * A Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture
 * Architecture: from art nouveau to deconstructivism by Klaus Richter
 * The architect 's history of architecture by Hans Rudolf Morgenthaler
 * Architectural Styles: A Visual Guide by Owen Hopkins Vladimir.copic (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is a good point - there's a general feeling in the article that suggests totalitarian regimes build Brutalist architecture - and possibly leaves open the suggestion that Brutalism is an indication of fascism and/or totalitarian thinking.
 * I'm no historian of buildings, but that seems to me to be far from true. Maybe the concept is just too difficult to write neutrally about (unanswerable questions including what counts as totalitarian, which buildings are examples of that etc). JMWt (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, this article just uses word "brutalist" in one example because one of the sources uses such word, but it does not claim that Brutalist architecture belongs to totalitarian architecture because it does not. I just removed this single word from the page. It did not matter. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It may be true that totalitarian architecture is not a distinct architectural style, but it should not be. We need to have a distinct subject described in multiple RS. A subject could be anything, not necessarily a style. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:TNT argues that if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article. There is non-trivial well-referenced useful content in the existing article, so I think that the appeal to TNT as a basis for deleting the whole article entirely is wholly self-defeating. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I basically don't think there is anything useful to keep (bar a handful of sources) so my logic is fine. As other editors have noted, when you start actually reading the sources (not just the titles) and comparing it to the text they support, it falls apart. Sources are often of dubious reliable (Psychogeography, a paper on Nazi Architecture from a Materials Sci & Eng conference, political org websites), don't properly reflect the text they support and are taken out of context (eg sources about Nazism or Communism & architecture are used to make statements about all "totalitarian architecture"). It will take ages to sort through the current article and likely very little will be retained. Whereas starting afresh will generate an article that reflects reliable sources and is more likely to attract someone like me to work on it.
 * Seeing the conversations above, I think a move to Totalitarianism and architecture would be productive and a better reflection of sources. Vladimir.copic (talk) 02:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

*Keep I am 100% sure this was a topic in my high school study books, and those were, all things considered, not exactly the most inclusive of sources. I don't for a moment believe too little has been written about this topic to support an article on it, and a swift google books/scholar search does seem to support that conclusion. --Licks-rocks (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. CastJared (talk) 08:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I kindly suggest you review the arguments above as to why Google scholar hits of the words “totalitarian” and “architecture” can get hits without actually demonstrably being its own architectural style. Paragon Deku (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I don't think it needs to be a style to be E, but I agree with you that it's not a style, and the lead part of the article is currently about a style. So there's a bit of an incongruence in my !vote. The body is a discussion of how the sources use it again, in contradiction to the lead, but it does so in a manner that is very much WP:SYNTH.
 * I concur. TNT it is, per Vladimir.copic. --Licks-rocks (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, like I said, references #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 15, 20, 25, 28, 31, 36 and 37 on the page are about the subject of “totalitarian architecture”, not random hits of words “totalitarian” and “architecture” in Google. My very best wishes (talk) 04:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 00:45, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to draft and rewrite, per the WP:TNT rationale of Vladimir.copic. BD2412  T 19:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments in the prior AfD, and the refs I and others found. The topic is notable. The article likely needs improvement, but I don't see what would be so bad here that it would merit a TNT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Move to draft. The article combines a range of sources talking about "totalitarian architecture" in different contexts to synthesise a new meaning. In the current form, the article advocates the idea that "totalitarian architecture" is a commonly accepted term for a defined architectural style, whereas many sources argue against it (see Vladimir.copic rationale above). This includes sources used and referenced in the article. For example:
 * Adam - On the whole, the architecture of the Third Reich closely followed... the architecture of the past... by no means exclusive to Germany or to totalitarian systems, it was the official style of many countries
 * Sablin - If we were not talking about an article, but a concise response to a question (posed during a survey of some specialists or just enthusiasts) that is placed in the title - whether architecture can be totalitarian at all, I would probably limit myself to the statement that there was definitely no specific architecture of totalitarianism and there couldn't have been. (ChatGPT translation).
 * I removed two instances of apparent original research that weren't supported by the cited sources, but the overall state of the article leaves an impression that it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no, first source is RS and it says: "In 2017, just before a Polish law came into force banning monuments that “symbolize or propagate” totalitarianism...", hence the connection to the subject of the page is clear. Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. Sablin criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", any valid criticism of the term too belongs to the page. My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Sablin criticizes the usage of term "totalitarian architecture", but this is not what the text referenced to Sablin that I removed from the article was saying.
 * Monuments and memorials are buildings, and they do belong to certain architecture. is original research. I couldn't find a single mention of demolished buildings or totalitarian architecture in either of the sources. This argument is exactly the kind of synthesis other editors expressed concerns about: "because there are monuments, and some monuments are memorials, and memorials are buildings, therefore monuments are architecture; monuments build by totalitarian states are therefore totalitarian architecture". PaulT2022 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh no, this source provides a number of specific examples. Sablin - agree with removal, but simply because this is strange source with broken link. My very best wishes (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Move to draft and rewrite. This feels like a synth-heavy essay that takes myriad mentions of "totalitarian architecture" and retrofits them into an encyclopedic article about a supposedly settled style. That said, it does seem to be a valid topic of discussion (for instance, it does have a coherent entry in Oxford Reference), so I don't think it should be totally bulldozed.--Gen. Quon[Talk] 13:39, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Making "draft" will be equal to deletion because the creator of this page is no longer active and no one else will be working with the draft. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to work on a draft. Paragon Deku (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * But it was you who nominated this page for deletion. Does it mean you are changing your opinion to "rewrite"? My very best wishes (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, but if that is the consensus, I would be willing. Paragon Deku (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, there are more than enough sources, including many of those cited in the article, to demonstrate that this easily-recognisable approach to architecture has long been recognised by architects and historians. Cities such as Moscow are indeed littered with enormous, conspicuous examples, but there are plenty in other countries, recording Fascist as well as Communist aspirations, and widely described as such by reliable sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful to provide a source that supports this point of view directly.
 * In the sources I'm aware of, the Seven Sisters, which are being used as as an example, are inevitably described as being distinct from the "easily-recognisable approach to architecture":
 * https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/29/world/europe/russia-stalin-moscow-seven-sisters.html
 * Is there indeed a source that would argue that this is the same style as, say, Fascist architecture, which Wikipedia currently describes as "Fascist styles often resemble that of ancient Rome, but can extend to modern aesthetics as well. Fascist-era buildings are frequently constructed with particular concern given to symmetry and simplicity"? PaulT2022 (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is an interesting point. I wonder if it impacts on the viability of this article.
 * The article as it stands defines totalitarian architecture as being architecture associated with totalitarian regimes.
 * I'm not sure if this is your point or not, however it appears that the term (or closely associated terms) can refer to something else in general use. Maybe the "totalitarian" part can refer to a particular type of building wherever it is in the world. Or perhaps it can refer to a type of architect mentality as per this article. Other refs which do not seem to fit with the thrust of this article include 1.
 * I don't know how to parse this. Can one have "totalitarian architecture" in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio? If the answer is 'no', what's the difference between this article and Nazi architecture or whatever? JMWt (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely. I didn't suggest deleting only because of the Red-tailed Hawk arguments in this discussion: there are sources that indicate that such framing might be notable, and a few non-trivial sources are referenced in this article.
 * For example, Ward (1970) discusses the purpose of totalitarian architecture and the role of an architect in a totalitarian country. He discusses parallels in how totalitarian architecture seeks to subdue and how totalitarian approaches to architecture are present in democratic societies, which is echoed in the Guardian column you found. There are various discussions of the 'totalitarian' role of the architect, and indeed, Corbusier's ideas. Then, there are sources that discuss the top-down approach of Haussmann's renovation of Paris (although most, I think, stop short of calling it totalitarian), and how these ideas were borrowed by totalitarian urban planning - see Cavalcanti (1992) referenced in the article; also, Urban planning in Nazi Germany.
 * I think the sources can be used to write a good article discussing the motives and purposes of totalitarian architecture, the role of the architect, approaches to urban planning, and so forth. Unfortunately, none of this is in the article, which mainly advocates for the existence of a supposed "style", a notion not supported or explicitly challenged by the referenced sources. I've proposed draftifying because the current content of the article is primarily synthesis and it requires a near-complete rewrite. PaulT2022 (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to cited sources and the page, this is a specific type of architecture in totalitarian states. Therefore, no, anything in London or Sydney or Columbus, Ohio would not qualify as such architecture. Accordingly, this page does not mention anything in London, Sydney or Columbus. Le Corbusier is indeed important for this page because of his Moscow projects, i.e. he was one of creators of such architecture. But it does not mean that all architecture by Le Corbusier was totalitarian. My very best wishes (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing with you but I offer the following from the reference I found above
 * - “Oslo, Moscow, Berlin, Paris, Algiers, Port Said, Rio or Buenos Aires, the solution is the same,” Le Corbusier maintained, “since it answers the same needs.”
 * JMWt (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What "solution" he is talking about? Does he call it "totalitarian architecture"? I am sure he did not mean that. Saying that, we do have page Le Corbusier in the USSR, which does belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What "solution" he is talking about? Does he call it "totalitarian architecture"? I am sure he did not mean that. Saying that, we do have page Le Corbusier in the USSR, which does belong here. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:TNT per Vladimir.copic. While apparently well-sourced, I don't think this article adequately reflects any of the ways that the term "totalitarian architecture" is used in the literature. It certainly doesn't give the impression (as it ought to) that the concept is contested. All I see in the article as it stands is thinly veiled WP:OR. So, blow it up! Aquaticonions (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just to clarify, this page correctly defines the totalitarian architecture (first phrase) as "a type of architecture ... approved by ... governments of totalitarian regimes, intended to strengthen and spread their ideology". This is a variety of culture serving propaganda. Just as Socialist realism, it does not exists outside of such political systems. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * As about the article not giving "the impression... that the concept is contested" - yes, this is true. This is simply because there are few to none RS where the concept was contested. If you can provide such sources, then they need to be included on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2023 (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.