Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin's Hanging Order (3rd 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 keep. The consensus is to keep, although there is also an evident need to discuss the article title, so I would suggest that this be discussed on the article's talk page PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:02, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin's Hanging Order (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has faced two AfD's in the past- one ended in no consensus, another ended in an overturned deletion. The document in question has no historical significance whatsoever, and the only sources in the article either provide background (i.e., the sources aren't related to the document) or provide a translation. I'm sure that Lenin sent many telegrams throughout his life. Sure, some of them were probably orders to kill some people- how is this one special? It isn't. Some will probably claim that it's mentioned in numerous sources, but these sources will not have the document used as a subject- they will just use the telegram as a source itself, just like thousands of other documents made by Lenin which are similarly not notable are also used as primary sources. Slon02 (talk) 03:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, same as before. Highly publicized document giving a good example of tactics employed by Lenin, sources seem to be reasonable. I still recommend moving the article to Hanging order, which seems to be more common (see searches linked in previous AfD).

P.S. Last AfD was overrun by a sock farm - even started by a sock.

--Sander Säde 07:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 08:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The title of this article is POV. The intent of this article is POV. The content of this article, whether it is encyclopedia worthy at all, well that we can debate. I'm not going to opine on that at this point; this is regarded as a "smoking gun" document by conservative historians conclusively proving that Lenin was a big bad meanie. Left wing historians regard it as axiomatic that there were summary executions and "examples made" by both sides during the bloody Russian Civil War. Is this one document "notable" because conservative historians at the Library of Congress have given it a catchy name? Does the fact that one document has been published in multiple sources excuse its use as a POV tool in a Wikipedia article? Might not this article be given a more appropriate name and broader scope? Lots of good questions. It would not be difficult to write and source a piece on White atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Or, for that matter, Bolshevik atrocities in the Russian Civil War. Why this one document? Carrite (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The document has huge historical significance as the first Lenin's order of the kind, which led to creation of the policy of Red Terror. Hence the specific name for the letter. It is quoted in almost any book about Bolshevik repressions. These books do not quote thousands of other letters by Lenin, maybe only one or two. Another similarly notable letter by Lenin was his letter to comrade Kursky that led to creation of famous article 58. Biophys (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If it led to the start of Red Terror, wouldn't that have been mentioned in either the article on Red Terror or on the order's article itself? Could you provide a source that verify such historical significance, because clearly it's not mentioned in the article. --Slon02 (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is secret letter by Lenin most widely quoted in relation to the policy of Red Terror (see for example, Black Book of Communism, page 72; book Communism by Pipes, etc.). Why can't we have an article about this letter? What's the problem? Biophys (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, there is the blatant POV pushed by that book- the criticism of it takes up the largest part of that article! Carrite previously brought up how the title of the article itself is POV, as is its intent. However, the main point here is simple. WP:GNG is very clear that there must be significant coverage- "more than a trivial mention". If it's simply quoted as part of a larger picture, then there is no way that you can consider that to be significant coverage in that source. I stand by my argument that this fails GNG. --Slon02 (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It tells: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material" [1]. Yes, that's exactly the case here (did you read the books I mentioned?). There are many secondary RS (books) that describe and quote this letter in detail. Biophys (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and maybe rename. There are certainly reliable sources that analyze this and discuss its background enough to indicate notability: [2][3][4]. Given the availability of English sources, I would presume there are more sources in Russian, as well. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a POV exercise in its present form. This is a document that could be aptly put into play in an article on the Red Terror, but as a free standing article, this is essentially a political piece. Carrite (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article name is itself POV --XXPowerMexicoXx (talk) 17:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep People may not like the conclusions of the Library of Congress, but their coverage of the telgraph is certainly an indepdendent, indepth and 3rd party source. The same with the BBC program. It is not a POV name if it is wideply applied outside of wikipedia. There is a reason why there is an article Boston Massacre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Planty of reliable sources are available. No objection to moving to Hanging Order, but the title is certainly not POV, it mere states who gave the order. Edward321 (talk) 13:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.