Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Communist genocide

To summarize
 * 1) Notability There are not enough RS to establish that deaths under communist regimes constitute genocide, nor that "Communist genocide" is a notable term. Furthermore, the two words used together doesn't make "Communist genocide" as a term notable, it just means "genocide by communists".
 * 2) POV It is incorrect to associate Communism in general with mass killings of individual regimes. "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" != genocide, besides most killed by Communist regimes were not rich. As defined in the Wikipedia page, Communism (from Latin: communis = "common") is a socioeconomic structure and political ideology that promotes the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general. Does it say anything about mass killings?
 * 3) Trolling This is the work of a banned crosswiki vandal in a blatant attempt to incite conflict in a controversial subject
 * Note: User is indefinitely blocked for block evasion, not banned. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Synthesis This is a bunch of sources, unrelated in the definition of "communist genocide", attempting to advocate the aforementioned unnotable concept.


 * "Communist genocide refers to the genocide carried out by communist regimes across the world. From the very beginning, communism forged a new order based on genocide" Wow, thats about as POV as it gets.  Triplestop  x3  15:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Then fix the article. The fact that an article might have some POV in it is not a sufficient reason to delete it.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article, by it's very nature, pushes a POV that can't be removed. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not. And how can an article be POV "by it's very nature" - was it decided at the beginning of time by the Grand Creator (or Grand Someone) that this particular article was going to be POV by "it's very nature"? What are you talking about? There's nothing POV about the "nature" of this article, and if there is POV in the article itself it can be removed. Not a reason to delete.radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's POV in the same way "List of all Republican Serial Killers" would be inherently POV. Irbisgreif (talk) 10:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin Given the nature of the subject, there is going to be clear bias in the votes. I ask that this be taken into account.  Triplestop  x3  03:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to closing admin - why should the nominator be allowed to put a very POV, biased, pronouncement at the top of the page (which makes sure that everyone will read it, as opposed to sifting through the individual comments and votes) asserting that somehow the voting is "biased" (which obviously, according to Triplestop, means that it hasn't gone according to her/his wishes). This is an attempt at manipulating the outcome with a grievous disregard of the actual votes. It borders on disruptive editing.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This isn't a vote at all. What he has requested is that the Admin remember this, and disregard comments if the user posting them seemed very biased and did not have good reasoning. Irbisgreif (talk) 23:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What you mean it's not a vote "at all"? It's a bunch of people voting, isn't it? How does that make it not a vote? Obviously, if you take one side, you're going to think that the people who vote on the other side are wrong. But to jump from that to the conclusion that the other votes should not be counted - i.e. only the "right" votes should be counted - is ridiculous (and also appropriately fitting, given the subject matter).radek (talk) 23:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Another note The creator of this page is a banned user, a serial crosswiki vandal. As this page was clearly an attempt to troll, perhaps G5 could apply here.  Triplestop  x3  20:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Supplementary note - the nature of the creator should mean, I think, that the default should be delete, not keep, if the judgement is "no consensus". Rd232 talk 21:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I read the sock puppet investigation as well as the user page of the creator. He wasn't banned, he was blocked indefinitely. There's a subtle distinction (at least some have said as much before) between the two, and a ban is quite different. If you read the blocking admin's explanation too, it undermines the notion that everything this user touches is cursed, which is not how G5 works. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The nature of the creator (whoever s/he is - I have no idea) has no barring on a delete/keep vote what so ever! What are you making up here? There's been plenty of editing at the article since it was created. The default, per Wiki policy, is keep if no consensus is reached.radek (talk) 23:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is a clear attempt to incite conflict in an issue of this controversial nature. If we can't agree to keep it, then don't feed the troll and trash it. Nothing of value would be lost  Triplestop  x3  02:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it goes without saying that we're way beyond speedy territory. There's obviously a lot of debate about a simple delete, there's certainly not consensus for a speedy at this point. Not to mention, G5 requires "having no substantial edits by others." Shadowjams (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, this article was created in a clear attempt to troll and I don't think we should allow his trolling to stand.  Triplestop  x3  20:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that concern, and I don't think it's wrong for you to have nominated it, but you're pretty bent on getting rid of this article. I'm just suggesting we don't lose sight of the big picture (encyclopedia). Shadowjams (talk) 20:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While we're on the subject of notifying the admin, you've been campaigning, in clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen a non-neutral request for someone to come and take a look. His actions don't look like canvassing to me. Consider that I had to come here to find out what his opinion was. Irbisgreif (talk) 18:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? You found his talk page posting "Hi, don't you think it is a shame there are people wanting to keep this blatant propaganda article?" a neutral message? And you're a linguist? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have only seen his noticeboard requests. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:14, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia had already voted when Triplestop put the question on his page, so it's not canvassing because people don't vote twice. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, and for that reason, and only that reason, I strike through my comment and apologize. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)