Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unreconstructed Marxism

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 delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreconstructed Marxism

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

Appears to be hoax Marcus Qwertyus 20:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The Rhymesmith (talk) 22:57, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a hoax (not a traditional hoax, though). But it's also not notable. It's a phrase, not really a subject of an article. Also, I believe the only fact the article asserts is an incorrect definition of the subject, so in that sense it is a hoax. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:31, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. "Unreconstructed Marxism" is a hoax? Really? It is a phrase in common usage (as a de rigueur Google Search reveals). It is used in scholarly discourse (see Google Scholar). The definition offered is of unreconstructed Marxism is of course incorrect. The phrase is used pejoratively for classical Marxism, and this common phrase should redirect there. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 04:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Actually, the phrase is "Unreconstructed Communists" ... This is a dictionary definition and it is a bad one about a combination of words that I have not heard together. Let's just make it go bye-bye and then if somebody wants to do unreconstructed communist in the future, more power to them. Carrite (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If the phrase is actually "unreconstructed communist," why does the phrase "unreconstructed Marxist/m" appear so often in both the academic and popular presses? If you would like for them both to redirect to classical Marxism that is one thing, but "alternative names" is the first reason given on Wikipedia:Redirect for having a redirect. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 13:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The multiple Google scholar hits which somehow seem so impressive to some people refer to "an unreconstructed Marxism" — with "Marxism" the noun and "unreconstructed" an adjective describing it. There is no reference — because it is not used — to a THING called "Unreconstructed Marxism," which would be the subject of a dictionary entry if it existed. I say again that the true-believer old school Communists of the former Soviet Union and Eastern bloc are sometimes referred to as "unreconstructed Communists" in the press, but I have never heard of the phrase "Unreconstructed Marxism." This is a case for outright deletion, not redirection. We are not in the business of creating neologisms. Carrite (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't something have to not be in common usage for it to be a neologism? Unreconstructed Communism turns up 49 hits, Unreconstructed Marxism 803, Unreconstructed Communist 3710, Unreconstructed Marxist 2920. If you like, both can redirect to classical Marxism, but I've never heard of it is not a valid argument. We are not discussing the notability of a stand-alone article but of the existence of an alternate name. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 15:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. —RJC ^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF. I'm usually not a fan of using that as an argument if I see potential for an article, but in this case it is not at all clear to me after a cursory inspection of the uses found in a Google scholar search that the meaning given in the "article" is a commonly understood meaning of the term, or even that the term has a commonly understood specific meaning. Without prejudice; if reliable sources can be found discussing the topic and providing a basis for a real article under this name, it can be written. --Lambiam 23:03, 18 August 2010 (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.