Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anarcho-stalinism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. Babajobu 07:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarcho-stalinism

Essay on a 21st century neologism -Doc ask? 11:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep The references go back ten years. Longer than wikipedia has been around.Brother No. 1 11:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research. Albert Langer is known in Australia as a Maoist not an anarcho-Stalinist whatever that might be. 19 Google hits for it none of which are verifiable [1] Anarcho-Stalinist does slightly better including a verifiable source for Langer [[2]

Capitalistroadster 11:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Albert Langer is not a member of a Maoist Communist Party at present, therefore he cannot be a Maoist. Anarcho-stalinists like Langer do not join organised political parties. Brother No. 1 11:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment That's a logical fallacy. I'm not a member of any political party. Does that mean that I may not be an adherent of one? Bobby1011 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Reply Maoists are members of their own country's Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist). Langer was a member, and is no longer, in line with his anarcho-stalinist viewpoint today.Brother No. 1 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Furthermore, anarcho-stalinism returns 98 Google hits, not 19 as stated above, and anarcho-stalinist returns 335 hits, including mainstream Australian journals such as 'The Age' and 'The Australian', Indymedia, Institutional Economics and Online Opinion, as well as messageboards and email lists across the world. Brother No. 1 11:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete This article makes no sense to me, for sure. No proper sources, not wikified, not even spelt properly. Neither of the Google hits make any sense either. Away with it! Jobjörn 12:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Could you point out the parts which you claim are not 'spelt properly', please. By the way, the correct grammatical phrase would be 'not properly spelt'. Brother No. 1 12:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I figured. Perhaps you should know that the sole reason as to why I've never written an article on the English Wikipedia by myself is that... english is not my mother's tongue, and I am quite certain any articles written by me would not be properly spelt. Otherwise, I would obviously correct all these errors. Furthermore; it's missing capitalization at beginning of sentences at least once, and the creator seems to be unable to decide whether to write anarchostalinism or anarcho-stalinism. (Jobjörn 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC))
        • Thank you for your admission that you were untruthful about my spelling errors. Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Also; I still don't understand why it's called "stalinism". To me, stalinism is a marxist-leninistic ideology characterized by extreme oppression from the ruling party - gulags and all that. The article is also implying that marxism-leninism is the same thing as stalinism, which is obviously not true. ("marxism-leninism (often known as stalinism)"). Ah well. Jobjörn 12:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you for your individual opinion on the definition of 'stalinism'. The word 'stalinism' refers to people who deem themselves Marxist-Leninist-Communists. See the online lists of Communist Parties (Marxist-Leninist) for your further educationBrother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • For YOUR further education, you might also browse through the articles about Stalinism and Marxism-Leninism. Then, it will become clear to you that Marxism-Leninism is not often known as Stalinism - such a wording would imply the two are synonyms, and the mere fact that there exists two separate articles for them contradicts this. And I've never even heard the term "Marxist-Leninist-Communists". Would you please point to a source where such a wording is used? Now, regrettably, I must leave you in order to do some proper work. I will return here tonight. Jobjörn 13:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, as unverifiable, hoax and makes no sense. --Terence Ong 12:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • I am sorry that you find political issues confusing.Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect and merge with Maoism. Yes, the article cites some invalid sources, and yes, the article is confusing, but the title appears to be a real alternative to Maoism (despite the articles assertions to the contrary), and in some contexts notable. The article's own sources contradict the assertion that Maoism and Anarcho-stalinism are different. Bobby1011 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification By alternative I meant synonym. Bobby1011 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Maoism depends upon a peasant class, therefore cannot exist in the modern, developed world. Non-party Maoists from the developed world use the term anarcho-stalinist.Brother No. 1 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment That my friend is an interpretation and as such falls under Original Research. Back it up with a reputable source. Bobby1011 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Thanks, my friend. You could visit Langer's own website http://www.lastsuperpower.net/ for his version of how anarcho-stalinism is applied in your home country of Australia, which will of course differ from mine in Wales.Brother No. 1 13:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
          • Comment Ok, if there is an article on Langer's website on Anarcho-stalinism, give us the link and we'll check it out. Bobby1011 13:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
            • ReplyBobby - thanks for your consideration. In return, I've done even better - I have contacted Albert Langer himself so he can possibly take part in this debate! How about that? Regards, Brother No. 1 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Clarification By alternative I meant synonym. Bobby1011 13:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete It seems Brother No. 1 is trying to pull a fast one. His article has been deleted in the past. Refer to his talk page. Bobby1011 13:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment My mistake. It seems to have been recreated so that it could be improved upon. Bobby1011 13:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Ah well. If it is to be kept, you might aswell add it to the anarcy series or whatever that template is called. (Although my vote for deletion remains, firm.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jobjörn (talk • contribs) 06-02-22 23:47:57.
  • Delete, the sources don't support half of the article's assertions. We need at least a couple sources by known identifiable authors that say "Anarcho-stalinism is...", and that it isn't identical to Maoism. Gazpacho 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
    • CommentOne cannot be a Maoist if one is not a member of a Maoist Communist Party (usually denoted by the title Communist (Marxist-Leninist) Party. Maoism is based in areas with large peasant populations, e.g. India, Nepal, Peru, Bangladesh, China. Anarcho-stalinism is an industrialised, urbanised, non-party variant of Maoism, which only exists in countries where there is no peasantry. I'm not sure whether I am confusing you here, or baffling you, but political theorists will understand anyway. Wikipedia should appeal to specialists and experts as well as laypersons like yourself, in order for it to be truly in-depth and comprehensive. A catch-all 'Maoism' just doesn't work. How do you reconcile anarcho-stalinists belief in industrial and scientific advancement with Maoists' belief in iron-smelting furnaces in every peasant's backyard?Brother No. 1 07:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
      • Am I confusing you? I think I've been pretty clear about my objections to the article, which are grounded in OR policy: "An edit counts as original research if... it provides new definitions of pre-existing terms; or... it introduces a synthesis of established facts in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing the synthesis to a reputable source." Gazpacho 09:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per comments on delete votes mentioned above (sources don't back article, term could just be a hoax, etc...)--Jersey Devil 08:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Thanks for your considered and carefully thought out response, young man - it's good that young people like yourself, especially young Americans, are beginning to take an interest in political issues. Please remember though that political theory extends beyond your university texts, which no doubt have a very norteamericano bias! Brother No. 1 09:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I've look through all the article's references and google searched it. I think it's WP:NOR. It seems to me that the terms anarcho-stalinist has been used almost as a neologism/protologism in a couple of media or alternative media outlets. Please cite the ten year data, as I can't seem to find it, or a reasonable review of the term if it has been around that long. -- Samir ∙ TC 10:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as apparent WP:NOR violation. If that isn't a good enough reason, the comments from Brother No. 1 on this discussion would be enough reason to convince me that it is more likely to be propaganda and WP:POV than encyclopædic content. – Doug Bell talk•contrib 10:37, 26 February 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.