Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Terror

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. I am far from convinced by the WP:TITLE argument in the nomination (an argument for renaming surely, not deletion) but there is a clear consensus to delete on WP:SYNTH grounds. I have read carefully the comments by PWilkinson and AJHingston which have a lot of merit. However, those considerations would seem to lead to a new article on Soviet propaganda or incorporation into another article on that subject rather than an article on White Terror as a term. Spinning Spark 14:45, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

White Terror[edit]

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

Fails to comply with WP:TITLE policy. The title of "White terror" does not "indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles." That is, it refers to different "White Terror" events in history, but this article simply lists them as unreferenced events. White Terror (disambiguation) is quite enough. – S. Rich (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If White Terror means counter-revolutionary terror, then it requires a source. But unless there is literature that connects these events, then it is synthesis to combine them. TFD (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as synthesis: AFAICT, the term "White Terror" is not uniformly applied to the assemblage given. It appears as though every case where there was a reaction to "red terror" is now labelled here as "white terror" which would require explicit reliable sourcing not given. Collect (talk) 22:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it is a synthesis grab-bag of separate topics. Binksternet (talk) 22:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there were anyone prepared to do some detailed research and a thorough recasting of the article, there is almost certainly a notable topic here. Trotsky and other Bolshevik propagandists during the Russian Civil War seem to have used the term "White Terror" to associate the actions of their opponents with Royalist atrocities during and after the French Revolution, and the term remained an at least occasional item in Communist propaganda until the 1970s or 1980s, available for application to any actions against later Communist insurgencies. The synthesis currently in this article replicates without acknowledgement (and possibly without knowledge) of the probably notable earlier Marxist-Leninist synthesis. PWilkinson (talk) 09:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Some of these events were certainly described as a White Terror, and to argue that was purely coincidental seems disingenuous. The Bolsheviks for example were very aware of the history of the French Revolution. The term is necessarily POV - it is used by opponents and the participants in many at least of the activities described themselves had a strong ideological justification. Whilst agreeing that the article does nothing now, and the disambiguation page serves the purpose of listing events described as a White Terror, deletion would have to be without prejudice to recreation by somebody who can find the sources which are very likely to be in Soviet era material especially in Russian. This one from the 1st congress of the 3rd International gives a good start and gives the lie to the argument that it is pure synthesis. --AJHingston (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2013 (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.