Deletion of Totalitarian architecture

Comment: Since the article in question has been drastically altered (and not in a good way, in my opinion) since I started this AfD, I'd like to do a breakdown of the sources to explain why they do not prove this is a notable topic and why it reflects that the article is a jury rigged  mess
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: I'm leaning delete (or maybe redirect). The discussion above reminds me a lot of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collapse (medical). Finding eliable sources about "collapse" in a medical context is not difficult, but those sources do not address a single cohesive topic—not even a  one—and consequently, that article was deleted. {{u|XOR'easter}} summarized this kind of problem fairly well {{diff2|1007911264|in another AfD discussion}}: {{tq|the bag-of-words model|bag-of-words approach to judging notability fails for technical topics}}. I think {{u|Paragon Deku}}, {{u|Vladimir.copic}}, and {{u|SnowFire}} have made a fairly convincing case that the same issue applies here. I am however perfectly willing to change my mind if it can be demonstrated that this is, in fact, ''a thing'' (where's  when you need it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Redirect (WP:R||WP:BROAD||WP:NOTATHING)

Comment: I added multiple reliable sources that directly address the topic. Passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: As presented by several participants and also as noted in the article's sources, there is enough material for the article to meet . In the Google Scholar, for example, there is vast material, which shows that the topic has been the subject of several academic studies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This is clearly a recognised concept per the ''https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803105035790 Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture'' and https://www.coe.int/en/web/cultural-routes/atrium-architecture-of-totalitarian-regimes-of-the-20th-century Council of Europe.  Our policy  applies "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page.''" See also 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:BROAD)

Comment: delete).   See the extended talk page conversation.  This is a classic case of |original research by synthesis.  Yes, ''the phrase "totalitarian architecture"'' can be found on Google Scholar, but there are many English phrases with hits in Google Books or Google Scholar that are not remotely Wikipedia article worthy.  The question is the notability of the claimed ''topic'' of totalitarian-architecture-in-general, which rules out 95% of the hits.  I don't plan on disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, but imagine for a moment articles like democratic architecture (on all architecture in all democracies across the world) or female architecture (on architecture principles allegedly in common from all women architects) or conservative architecture (architecture made by conservatives?) or Jewish architecture (connecting architecture of Israel, architecture of synagogues, and works of secular civil architects who are Jewish).  You can find hits on Google Scholar for all of these, these phrases are casually used, and you could make synthesis abominations by quoting the Google Book snippets at random to develop some "theory of conservative architecture" as your bit of original research.  Fair disclaimer, the Igor Golomstock book is ''actually'' a good source here: he wrote a book that was actually studying and comparing architecture across totalitarian regimes and finding things in common (as well as things NOT in common), and that is the topic of the entire book (not a phrase taken from a random context where it was likely just synonymous with "fascist architecture").  The problem is we need more - a single 1990 book that would fail  is not really enough, we don't create WP articles for every random book or journal article's thesis.  Most of the other sources mentioned in this discussion are incredibly shallow - the Oxford page is two sentences long!  And most of the other Google hits are, again, just passing uses of the phrase, not the claimed Wikipedia topic of "connecting principle across all architects we Don't Like
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:NBOOK)