Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Jewish Bolshevism (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Jewish Bolshevism. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Jewish Bolshevism[edit]

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

Non notable obscure pamphlet. USchick (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jewish Bolshevism, which covers the larger topic of the mixture of anti-communism and anti-semitism. Without that a person could not understand this article. I disagree with the nom in that the pamphlet is notable enough. However a merged article would be better for the reader, since it's all one topic and a lot of material is duplicated already. BayShrimp (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a merger and the editors there are against it. They are also not willing to discuss sources. If there are reliable sources that establish the notability of this pamphlet, I wish someone would present them. USchick (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To save some legwork, could you clarify why the sources listed in the article, which appear reliable, are not? (The ones that are non-primary.) Thanks. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a copy of a bibliography from a book, which is probably a definitive source, but needs a citation. 08:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The pamphlet is notable - 2,900 hits on Google books and is considered one of the main texts for believers in the international Jewish conspiracy theory. TFD (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~Keep, the pamphlet is notable in its own right. However the article contents should remain limited to material directly pertaining to the pamphlet (i.e. not discussing the relationship between Jews and communism in general). --Soman (talk) 23:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with caveat by Soman. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Assuming Oppose (deletion) is the same as the usual !vote of Keep Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a historical item, covered is scholarly sources. - Altenmann >t 05:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion -- The description of surviving copies of the pamphlet, evidently a very rare work do not belong in an encyclopaedia. It might be worth listing the libraries that have it. The Gbooks hits data cited (I got 3100) is not satisfactory, because it includes the subject (as opposed to the pamphlet). The question is whether this should remain a separate article or be merged into Jewish Bolshevism (where it is currently not even mentioned. It could provide a means of expanding its "Great Britain, 1920s" section, which is currently rather thin. However, I do not think I know enough of the subject to be sure what to do. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~, though it could do with more explication of its historical significance - David Gerard (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC) Merge - IZAK's merge is just fine - David Gerard (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to Jewish Bolshevism#The Jewish Bolshevism. I have extracted and transferred all the key information into that sub-section (part of Jewish Bolshevism#Works that propagate Jewish Bolshevism) which is more befitting WP's reader-friendly style with sufficient space for this minor topic. The so-called "Bibliography" here is just padding that violates WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. In fact, this article could very easily fit somewhere into the more important topic of Nazi propaganda#Media as one concise paragraph. As the article stands now, it seems that quite possibly it is trying to sneak in and propagate its contents in unnecessary detail in violation of WP:NOTSOAPBOX in a more subtle fashion as well. IZAK (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this is a great piece of history but too short of an article belonging to a huge subject to have its own.--Shmaltz (talk) 21:49, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. -- Olve Utne (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but there's a more specific merge to the very general Jewish Bolshevism--the article on the author Ernst Boepple, who is responsible for other obnoxious things also. (and the article E. Boeplle needs to be redirected to that one also. ) To make an article on the pamphlet itself, we'd need some historical evidence that this particular pamphlet was influential in England beyond the general run of antisemitic publications . I think this may actually be the case, & if it is , the section can and should be re-expanded. I do point out a flaw in the arguments above : that it is now rare. Rareness at the present time in libraries is due to the obvious change in popularity (or at least social acceptability) of the relevant political views since 1913. I suspect copies in UK and US libraries were generally removed by 1939/1941, and certainly the Allies destroyed all copies in German libraries and even private homes in 1945/6. (And I wonder how frequent is was found in US/UK libraries in the 20 or 30 years after publication--this is relatively difficult to see, and would be a research project) If the physical copies are very rare, all the more reason for us to cover it substantially. We're an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 13:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per DGG's suggestion; but lose the bibliography, which (especially in its current format) serves almost completely as padding. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but don't merge. There is more content about this than would fit reasonably in a different article. Wincent77 (talk) 03:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.