Deletion of Communist genocide (2nd nomination)

Comment: Pure  with a dash of OR, even though the article has been renamed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: It appears to be a |synthesis, and the subject itself doesn't appear notable. These regimes have little in common, so grouping them like this is pure bias. I'm British, and sad to say we used to be pretty good at genocide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: WP:IDONTLIKEIT still isn't a reason for deletion, neither is . Steady improvement through consensus-building on talk has been going since last AfD and as a result the article has been improving by leaps. By now there is a myriad of valid sources - I have hard time believing good faith from editors who still claim the article is 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as  if no serious effort to rewrite is being undertaken. "Mass killings under Communist regimes" is not a term that is commonly being used (8 hits on Google, none at Google books), so it cannot "refer" to anything (as the article's first sentence asserts). The quote containing the assertion that Friedrich Engels was talking about "racial trash" (which he apparently never did), taken from a book that is characterized as "controversial" by its own publisher, must either be removed or put into context. The most important step is to ascertain whether there is any scholarly term for what the article calls "Mass killings under Communist regimes" or not.&nbsp
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: a soapbox filled with . While there have been communist "genocides", the idea of a communist genocide ''movement'' is nuts
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This nomination was a bit premature as editors should have a chance to fix the newly renamed entry.  However, it looks rather grim, especially under the new supposedly more neutral title.  If there is a notable concept linking communist political ideology to genocide it certainly is not known as "mass killings under Communist regimes".  How about "mass killings under ..." feudal monarchies or theocracy or republican regimes or etc.  If it were acceptable here to structure entries like this we'd have over 30 million instead of 3 million.  We can't just start listing mass killings that were sponsored by regimes identified as communist and pretend like it is meaningful.  Is it factual, sure, but part of what  and  give us is a standard by which to judge concepts as meaningful.  We assume to some extent that if something is covered by reliable sources then it is meaningful and therefore fodder for an encyclopedia.  Using sources to actually show that "Communist genocide" is a meaningful concept (if that is possible) would have been the right way to go about this
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)

Comment: Textbook  violation.  Per
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)