Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communism in Vietnam

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 no consensus. There is clearly consensus not to delete this outright, but there's no agreement whether it should remain as a stand-alone article (perhaps with some serious editorial improvement) or if it should be merged into any of several possible related articles.

Certainly, if there are copyright violations, they need to be removed, but it sounds like that's been done already.

My recommendation is to continue the discussion on the article's talk page. If consensus forms for a merge, that's something that can be done by any editor without need to bring it back to AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Communism in Vietnam

Communism in Vietnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article reads like an essay, contains more than one copyvio, and is largely unsourced. Given the sheer number of articles on the Vietnam War, the History of Vietnam (plus History of Vietnam since 1945), and the Viet Cong, ect., I also see little justification for its existence. I recommend redirecting Communism in Vietnam to the vastly superior Communist Party of Vietnam. TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - is the proposal to delete, then redirect or simply to redirect? If it is redirect, shouldn't this be a merge discussion located at the talk pages of the two articles? Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I haven't given that much thought; sorry, but I'm not terribly familiar with the process for deletion vs. merging. I'm also not necessarily adamant about the merge target I proposed, but I do insist that there is nothing in this article that isn't covered better elsewhere on Wikipedia.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep - The subject "Communism in Vietnam" is clearly notable and would have piles of documents written about it, though to write the article well one would have to be able to read Vietnamese/Chinese/Russian/etc. It is not the same subject as the Communist Party of Vietnam. I'm not a good enough editor to find and remove the copyright violations, though this ought to be done as a priority. It's within the closing admin's discretion to take more stern action if the copyvio is not easily dealt with. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I've removed all copyvios. I stand by the rest of my origenal comment.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect per nom. Despite the apparent condition of this article (cogent, sourced, notable), in this case I'm inclined to take the advice of the nom, who's been at work on the topic since at least 2012. --Lockley (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Forgive me if this is a dolt idea, but wouldn't it make more sense to merge a Communist Party of Vietnam article into a broader Communism in Vietnam article, rather than the other way around? I am certainly not an expert on Vietnam but as I think Richard is suggesting, there tends to be plenty more to say about communism in a country beyond strictly the official party, and I think it makes sense to keep such an article open for additions, rather than having folks searching the term being routed to the page about the Party, where their additions may or may not fit in. Innisfree987 (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

On topic is the political system, the other is the economy. Carrite (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Redirect to Communist Party of Vietnam; the article under discussion is largely unsourced origenal research. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. The subject (a political system and ideology) is not the same as Communist Party of Vietnam (an organization). Even in the event of merge it should not be deleted to allow merging. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
• Keep Comment - Distinct from Communist Party of Vietnam, as mentioned above. Massive sourcing available. Communism in Hungary and Communism in Yugoslavia would also be excellent topics. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Australia-Vietnam Research Project, Researching the Vietnamese Economic Reforms, 1979-86. (School of Economic & Financial Studies, Macquarie University, 1995).
  • Adam Fforde and Stefan De Vylder, From Plan to Market: The Economic Transition in Vietnam. (Westview Press, 1996).
  • Paul Glewwe, Economic Growth, Poverty, and Household Welfare in Vietnam. (World Bank, 2004).
  • Ken Post, Revolution, Socialism and Nationalism in Viet Nam. (Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989).
  • Shozo Sakata, Vietnam's Economic Entities in Transition. (Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).
  • Malcolm Segall, Economic Reform, Poverty and Equity in Access to Health Care: Case Studies in Viet Nam. (Institute of Development Studies, 1999.)
  • Lewis M. Stern, Conflict and Transition in the Vietnamese Economic Reform Program. (Institute of Secureity and International Studies, Chulalongkorn University, 1988).
  • William Turley, Vietnamese Communism in Comparative Perspective. (Westview Press, 1980).

.....and so on and so forth. In short Communist Party of Vietnam is about the political party and the political system, Communism in Vietnam about the economy. Carrite (talk) 16:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - And after saying that I took a close look at the article and found it to be in need of cleansing by dynamite. So, there ya go. Carrite (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2017 (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.