Deletion of Mass killings under Capitalist regimes

Comment: for now and '''improve'''. There may be some merit in the  claim, but the creation of the article does not appear to me to be at all disruptive, so this is not in itself a reason for deletion. The article is in a poor state, but it is possible that it can be made viable (let's see). It may be that refs cannot be provided to show that the phenomenon it is set up to describe exists or is notable, in which case eventual deletion would be the right thing
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: The article was originally created as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373650810 this, an initial adaptation from Mass killings under Communist regimes, created partly because there was then no space on Wikipedia where non-Communist mass killings were discussed as a class (mass killing is a disambiguation page). It was nominated for deletion 4 hours after creation, and shortly after that the removal of various content reduced it to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373766415 this. At the time the vast majority of !votes above were cast, it looked like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=373812937 this (or worse). At the time of writing, it looks like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_Killings_caused_by_Capitalism&oldid=374071385 this, and includes as sources (among others) a peer reviewed academic article, an academic book (''Late Victorian Holocausts''), and the views of Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, as well indications of other sources and cases where further research is likely to turn up relevant sources. My question is this: #G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Because of the excessively early AFD nomination, the article has undergone dramatic changes since most of the current !votes. Were this not to be taken into account, the existence of G4 would create a situation where paradoxically, an article up for deletion should not be improved whilst the AFD is under way, and improvements kept for after the article is deleted, to allow G4 not to apply. This would clearly be perverse. The problem is all the more dramatic in this case where the nomination was made mere hours after creation, precluding sufficient time for Wikipedia's strength (collaborative endeavour) to achieve much. In sum, the early votes (particularly those based on erroneous accusations of yness) should be discounted; a "no consensus, default to keep" would permit a new AFD nomination at any time to consider the revised article. Alternatively, the nominator could withdraw the AFD, and renominate immediately or at a future time
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion (WP:CSD||WP:POINT)

Comment: WP:POINT is a shortcut pointing to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Creation of this article is neither intended to be disruptive, nor actually disruptive. The fact that it doesn't have sources a few hours after creation isn't a reason for deletion - has the nominator respected  (point 10) especially in context of ? The notion that the article is a misnamed Mass killings under colonial regimes is also incorrect - whilst I initially only provided a link in the article to the existing article Anti-communist mass killings, some of that content can be summarised in the article, and none of that is to do with colonialism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE||WP:IMPERFECT)

Comment: The reasons for deletion include  and a claim that this is intrinsically an advocacy article based on a Marxist interpretation and has no actual RS sources otherwise.   The reasons for keeping include an apparent desire to balance an article on mass killings which occurred under communist regimes with a sister article blaming Chinese and Indian 19th century famines on "Capitalism" which may well be a "fringe POV" at best
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT)

Comment: A prime example for  to go with its brother article Anti-communist mass killings.   Note date of conception, and the participants in the infinite AfD loop on the article which these editors really dislike.  This article is a clear  even using much if the boilerplate from the article it is a fork of!   Right now it even includes famines in India under the raj -- when there the precise same problems occurred for aeons before, and certainly since, that period.   As such it is also  in itself (which is not grounds for deletion, to be sure
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: This is . "Capitalist system" means merely market economy. I am not familiar with any academic sources claiming market economy being responsible for the systematic extermination of people. That was always something else, such as Nazi ideology, for example
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: Despite claims to the contrary, this seems like a clear case of , but more importantly, the article is , as this isn't a scholarly subject in the same way that Mass killings under Communist regimes is.  Tellingly, the original title for this article has already been changed, as there is no such thing as a Capitalist ''regime'' in the first place, since Capitalism isn't even a system of government
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (WP:POINT||WP:SYNTH)

Comment: claims of  which do not explicitly address the fact that sources like ''Late Victorian Holocausts'' make precisely the thesis the article documents should be discounted, since clearly these !voters haven't bothered to read the article properly and are dismissing the thesis on the basis of their own gut instinct. Also, it should be irrelevant whether the thesis is true or not, since it is a significant one worth documenting - though concluding it isn't true would encourage renaming the article to avoid implying Wikipedia thinks it is, which seems to be the underlying complaint with virtually all opposition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)