Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Nazi Propaganda

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 delete. The two keep votes didn't craft an argument strong enough to turn the scales to their side against what most delete votes expressed. → Call me Hahc21 02:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Nazi Propaganda[edit]

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

If we assume good faith, the two sources at best only mention these phrases. I conducted Google searches and it appears that "Anti-Nazi propaganda" and "Anti-Hitler propaganda" are phrases used by pro-Nazi (which I won't linked to here but you can search and see what I mean) and anti-Jewish websites. Notability and NPOV are the main reasons for deletion. I am One of Many (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a random nominal phrase. not a subject of significant discourse in literature.- Altenmann >t 07:26, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:37, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be presenting the twisted mindset of Nazi apologists as fact ("Anti-Nazi propaganda is openly and commonly used in popular Adolf Hitler and World War II documentaries" - !), and no sensible definition of this term seems likely. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't appear to be covered in sufficient depth to support an article. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the article is a stub, but just the fact its being considered for deletion really makes me question Wikipedia's neutrality. If Wikipedia doesn't recognize the article, then I certainly wont be a part of this anymore. - Jonas Vinther
Comment Nazi's are a touchy subject. It is mentioned above that "Anti-Nazi propaganda" appears mainly in pro-Nazi articles, which makes sense; it's hard to find someone neutral who would defend Nazi's, even against a false accusation. If I walked into a crowded room, and yelled out "Nazi's hate puppies!" no one would come to their defense, especially with the risk of being labeled as "pro-nazi." Proving notability for this article will be difficult: neutral, verifiable sources will be near impossible to find. Greedo 8 17:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Adolf Hitler. If there were some substantive content in the article, as to propaganda that was issued by people who knew it to be false, I might take a diffenret view, but at present we have no more than a dictionary definition with two citations, one of which is to a book that has no proper citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cant seriously believe this conversation/discussion is actually happening. If you don't regonise Anti-Nazi propaganda exist, you are certainly not a neutral Wikipedian, and a big idiot! - Jonas Vinther
- In regards to this comment, please see WP:ENN. The issue is whether or not it is notable, not whether or not it exists. Also, removing the deletion template as you did here and here is against Wikipedia policy, and does not stop the deletion process; it only makes it more difficult for other users to comment on the discussion. Furthermore, calling other users "a big idiot!" is not civil, please don't do it. Lastly, I would appreciate it if you sign your posts with four tildes like so: ~~~~. See WP:SIGHOW. Greedo 8 21:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've had enough. I'm not going to be part of this completely non-neutral encyclopedia, who's also heavily influenced by propaganda. Do whatever you want, I'm leaving. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep User:Jonas Vinther Hold on. You can't judge all of Wikipedia by these few editors. We have a page called Reductio ad Hitlerum. First of all, since the article refutes the fallacy that "It is bad because Hitler did it too" or "Hitler promoted X, therefore it is bad". The fact that we have such an article helps a neutral image. But anyways, this article doesn't seem notable to me, because we do not have any examples. If we can find examples, then the article can stay for certain, because if we are able to find examples, the article is notable. I say we should allow time for examples to be found before we destroy it. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment People, also remember that we can display content without promoting and endorsing anyone's opinion's or arguments. In other words, just because we reveal other's opinions doesn't mean we agree with them. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You indicated "keep" even though you concluded that the article is not notable? We don't keep article on Wikipedia based on the hope that they will someday become notable. I am One of Many (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mr. Guye I actually do have dozens of examples, but before I could continue the stub article, it was nominated for deletion. That's what I think is very rude, and non-neutral. I agree that you can't judge an entire page because of "some" certain users behavior. I had a pretty bad day, and perhaps I exaggerated. Yet, I stand firm in my belief that if this article gets deleted, in the belief it's not relevant, or that Anti-Hitler Propaganda doesn't exist, I will, with certainly, leave, because that would prove that this encyclopedia is not neutral. I could add much more details to the article, but then I want to be assured it's not going to be deleted. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources that go into depth about this topic and thereby establish notability, then do add them. This is an encyclopedia. Articles must by notable and neutral and the article does not meet these criteria yet. Consider that there may be good reason why "anti-nazi propaganda" is not notable. Quoting from propaganda "Propaganda is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position". Due to the facts of what the nazis and Hitler did, ant-nazi and anti-Hitler propaganda likely played little or no role influencing attitudes towards nazis or Hitler and thus it lacks notability. I am One of Many (talk) 17:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could certainly do that, but it would seem like such a waste if it were to be deleted. If we can conclude that the article deserves to be an article and not deleted, I can add tons of information and sources. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, I think Anti-Nazi propaganda is very notable, but nobody talks about it in the fear of being labeled as a pro-Nazi. Personally, I'd say it could boost Wikipedia's neutrality image, that this article is kept. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although the term probably exists, the article provides no references to reliable sources that discuss it, making the article a dictionary definition at most. Also, the (original research?) content seems to be, incredibly enough, an inept attempt at Nazi apologism. Sandstein 20:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be a non-notable example of the phrase "anti-X propaganda". Sjö (talk) 20:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since there is an article for Nazi Propaganda, I'd say it should be kept. Besides, like I said in another comment, I think it's very notable to all serious historians, but no one really takes it any further in the fear of being labeled as a pro-Nazi or Nazi symphatizer. I'm sorry, but you simply cannot deny the existence of Anti-Nazi/Anti-Hitler propaganda. Jonas Vinther (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2014 (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.