Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin's Hanging Order (2 nomination)

:{{la|Lenin's Hanging Order}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lenin's Hanging Order (2 nomination)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Lenin's Hanging Order}})

The article is original research about a certain event in history of Soviet Union based exclusively on primary sources, with improper title: about the order itself is only its translation. The article talk page contains sizzled discussion that something wrong with this article. In is unclear what is the notability of this event or order: no secondary sources, and I am sure Lenin issued hundreds of ruthless orders. Laudak (talk) 04:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions.
• Rename, keep, hang!. Ambiguous title. And it was not an order, strictly speaking. NVO (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Why? - Altenmann >t 08:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC) could you be more specific please?NVO (talk) 09:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• I have mixed feelings about this article. On one hand, the secondary sources could be better (I don't have access to the cited books); on the other, it is a notable example of Lenin's tactics. Considering LoC names the telegram Hanging Order (see also [http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/archives/coll.html here]), it might be best to name the article to Hanging Order, too. So, overall, weak keep. --Sander Säde 13:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This page is not about event, but about a document. This document was highly publicized. We now have four articles about it on languages other than English. The only question is about the title. Current title comes from the library of US Congress if I understand correctly. The page might be renamed rather than deleted, but current title is sufficiently descriptive.Biophys (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

::If this document is so notable why, if you click on "scholar" above, only one web-site appears (on Gray's Anatomy!)? One, irrelevent web-site under "scholar" is not a very impressive total with which to claim wikipedia notability. Colin4C (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

:::The document is notable (it was quoted in numerous books), but the title of the article is not. Hence, there are only a few hits in Google search.Biophys (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Possibly, rename to "Lenin's telegram of 11 August 1918". It has 4 interwikis now. Yes, Lenin issued much more such orders, but this was one of the few such documents preserved in archives.DonaldDuck (talk) 02:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. No evidence presented that the telegram is of any particular historical notability. Timurite (talk) 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. I think this article was originally intended as part of an anti-Communist POV propaganda offensive on the wikipedia. Lenin issued thousands of "orders", some good, some bad, some indifferent, of which this seems to be the only one commemorated on the wikipedia - for POV reasons I think. Even the name of the article is (deliberately?) misleading. Lenin it seems "ordered" some kulaks to be hanged, but in the event nobody was actually hanged and the "order" (if that's what it was), was disobeyed...A bit like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland shouting "off with their heads" than an "order" methinks. Lenin, was no doubt, a very ruthless man, but it does no service to truth to have such a misleadingly titled POV piece in the wikipedia. I'm not sure how it could be improved, as POV seems to be of its essence, therefore I suggest it be deleted. Colin4C (talk) 09:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::Uhm, just a question, what is the source about no one being hanged? --Sander Säde 12:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

:::You hit the nail here: There are no sources at all about the subject of this article, and there is nothing to write about beyond improper original research and political rants. Timurite (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

::::In answer to Sander, Lenin, himself, testifies to his exasperation that nobody was hanged, in a further letter to the Gubernia Executive Committee in which he modifies his instructions:

:::"I am extremely indignant that there has been absolutely nothing definite from you as to what serious measures have at last been carried out by you for the ruthless suppression of the kulaks of the five volosts and confiscation of their grain. Your inactivity is criminal. All efforts should be concentrated on a single volost, which should be swept clean of all grain surpluses. Telegraph fulfillment." Telegram to the Penza Gubernia Executive Committee of the Soviets (quoted in J. Brooks and G. Chernyavskiy's, Lenin and the Making of the Soviet State: A Brief History with Documents (2007). Bedford/St Martin’s: Boston and New York: p.77).

::::In a old version of the page there was a link to a Russian web-site claiming that 13 people were shot (not hanged) in response to the order. Lenin's "orders" were in fact quite often ignored by the local Soviets. For instance when the head-honcho of the White Armies Admiral Kolchak was captured by the Reds, Lenin ordered that he not be executed but kept in custody alive for interrogation. However, in the event, the local rebels decided that the best thing to do was to ignore Lenin, shoot Kolchak and throw his body in the nearest river. Despite this however, no wikipedia editor has yet decided to create a Lenin's Whatever You Do Don't Shoot Kolchak Order article. Colin4C (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• If there's anything sourceable here that isn't already in the Prodrazvyorstka article then it should be merged there, where it can be covered in better context. Otherwise, delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. Possibly, rename to "Lenin's telegram of 11 August 1918", as DonaldDuck says. Hepcat65 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. As it appears, the telegram itself is quite widely discussed, but not as "Hanging order". Fairly simple Google [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Lenin+telegram+%2211+August%22+Penza&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps Scholar] and [http://books.google.com/books?q=Lenin%20telegram%20%2211%20August%22%20Penza&hl=en&sa=N&tab=sp Books] searches bring a reasonable amount of additional sources; almost certainly more sophisticated searches will bring more results. --Sander Säde 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I concur with the above comment. It as an important historical document that is referenced in numerous books and articles on Lenin and the Russian Revolution (for example, in [http://205.188.238.181/time/time100/leaders/profile/lenin4.html this article] by David Remnick). I would not object to the name change suggested by DonaldDuck. --C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Clearly an important historical document and a number of sources are available. Edward321 (talk) 14:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Google seacrh shows that this telegram is used as primary source, but so used have been hundreds of other Lenin's telegrams and tens of thousands of letters of various famous people. We only have articles about documents which were subject of published research on their own. The current article has no such evidence. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2010 (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.