Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clash of Eagles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Keep issues raised as basis for deletion were addressed. Gnangarra 14:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clash of Eagles[edit]

Clash of Eagles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Does not meet any criteria of WP:BK. Redlinked author. No sources, looks like WP:OR. Tan ǀ 39 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the book itself was completely fabricated. I meant the plot summary, analysis, POV, etc was all the article author's original work. Also, simply linking to the google list of hits doesn't show that the book meets the notability criteria of WP:BK. Tan ǀ 39 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No evidence of significance whatsoever. Loads of books exist, but to have articles they should be notable -- meaning significant within their field. There is no indication of this at all. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I didn't see an ISBN # listed in the article. Unless there is one, it's a fast fail of notability. Jon (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is one listed on Amazon and its publisher was Fawcett, which I believe may refer to Fawcett Publications.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have been able to find an entry on Uchronia and Library Thing about this novel. Also this book is cited in the novel The World Hilter Never Made [3]. Also apparently the novel is mention in this article but I have been unable to access it. However I haven't been able to find any notable reviews but there appears to be a lot of things (novels, dvds, games, etc) that share the name of this novel so its difficult to shift through all of the info. Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After looking around some more I have been unable to find any other notable sources about this novel than what I was able to find above.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me quote: "Published in the United States by Ballantine Books, a Division of Random House, Inc., New York, and simulateneously in Canada by Random House of Canada Limited, Toronto. ISBN number 0-449-14596-4, Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 90-93042". I think this takes care of most of the objections appearing above. (By the way, the Wikipeida page notes that "Random House of Canada", originally only the Canadian distributor of the American Random House Books, established in 1986 its own indigenous Canadian publishing program that has become one of the most successful in Canadian history; this book was published in 1990, i.e. was among the earlier books put out by this notable Canadian publishing success). Another important aspect: it is a very well established situation that Wikipedia has numerous pages for books and films dealing with all the horrible ways that the world might have looked like had Hitler won WWII. Here are some (I think not all): "The Ultimate Solution", "Fatherland (novel)", "It Happened Here", "The Man in the High Castle", "1945 (novel)", "SS-GB", "In the Presence of Mine Enemies", "Collaborator (novel)", "The Sound of His Horn", "Making History (novel)", "Swastika Night", "The Plot Against America", "The Iron Dream", "The Children's War". I think it is very justified that it is so, because this is a subject of specific interest both to people interested in alternate history and to quite a few of the people interested in Nazi Germany in general. "Clash of Eagles" belongs with all these other books, and people to whom the other pages of this kind are interesting and useful are also likely to find this page interesting and useful; in short, creating this page had filled a gap and deleting the page would re-create this gap. Perhaps all these pages should be combined into one super-page, say "Nazi Victory Alternate History", but until and unless this is done, "Clash of Eagles" deserves its page as much as any of those others. Anne McDermott (talk) 19:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anne, I'm trying very hard to maintain patience with your arguments, but there's only so many times I can say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - please click on that link - is not a valid argument. Also, I'm going to post the specific requirements of WP:BK below, because you have not even touched on it; it still appears you have not even read it. Tan ǀ 39 20:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
  1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
  4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.[6]


Hi "Tanthalas39" (we seem to be on a first-name base, but I don't know yours - even if I do know now what you look like, sun-glasses and all). I have taken the trouble to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS thoroughly and found that unlike your very very emphatic and impatient argument about "not a valid argument", what it actually seems to say is that this could be a valid argument in some cases though not in others - and I think I have good grounds to say that this particular article is one of them.
I agree, the mere fact that other similar articles exist, even many of them, could not be in itself a reason to keep an article; it could just mean that all the hundreds or thousands of others also deserve to be deleted, just nobody had (yet) taken the time and trouble to do it. (Though even in such a case it could make a person wonder why his or her articles are the particular ones to be targeted). But anyway, I am what I want to contend is:
  • There are in Wikipedia many pages devoted to alternate history books (and films) describing how the world would have looked like had the Nazis won;
  • There is a good reason why there should be such pages in Wikipedia, because the subject is of interest to quite a few people;
  • These pages should be considered as a series or structure, which have implications for and interconnections with each other, and this aspect should be considered in whether or not they should be there - as well as each page's individual merits or lack of them. Many of these pages already have cross-references to each other in their "See Also" section. I think that there should also be set up a "Category: Nazi Victory Alternate History" for the convenience of people interested, as well as a page with the same name having an orderly table listing all the individual books and films. This is one of the projects on my agenda (if I don't become too discouraged by too many things I try to do being reversed or deleted).
  • As such, "Clash of Eagles" has a clear place in the spectrum or continuum of Nazi Victory alternate history. As a description of a world where the Nazis conquered part of the US but not all, it stands about half-way between "Fatherland (novel)", which describes a world where the Nazis conquered Europe but not America, and The Ultimate Solution where they conquered the whole of America and the entire world and there is nowhere to run from them (brrr...).
  • Therefore, it is quite useful for a person interested in the subject (for example, wanting to compare different books with each other) to have the "Clash of Eagles" page with a plot summary readily available in Wikipedia - and it would be quite inconvenient to have this page deleted and have once again to hunt for information about this book in other websites which give a much less comprehensive description. (I speak of the concrete experience of specific people which I know of.)

I respectfully submit that all the above is a quite reasonable justification to keep this page on, completely consistent with the guidelines set out in WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Anne McDermott (I hate to offend you), I respect that you are spending time on this. I also would like to say that I have zero inherent interest in having this article deleted; I merely think that as it is - completely unsourced and lacking notability - that it undermines Wikipedia's credibility and integrity as a place to obtain knowledge. I notice that you have once again ignored the entire list of notability criteria found in WP:BK. The fact that there are alternate history book articles on Wikipedia doesn't establish notability. The fact that "quite a few" people are interested doesn't establish notability. If the category as a whole has notability, as you imply in your third bullet point above, then the category should have an article, and not each individual book. Wikipedia is not a book review site. We need to find some claim of actual notability. This means meeting one of the five points I listed above. "Being interesting" or "having a following" is not valid. I'm relatively sure that it will not meet the last four; so what we need is to find something from the first point - "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience." This does not mean being found on Amazon or Google, nor merely mentioned anywhere. Whether or not we discourage you from pursuing your planned project is irrelevant to me; I am here to ensure Wikipedia policy is upheld. Tan ǀ 39 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BK. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The book is discussed in detail in The World Hilter Never Made, a scholarly and comprehensive book on the specific subject (Nazi Victory Alternate History) whose sources are indeed independent of the book itself and which definitely serves a general audience. There are references to the place Rutman's book has in this overall sub-genre and comparison of it to other books - which seems to bear out the arguments set out by Anne McDermott. (Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, the writer of "The World Hilter Never Made", also communicated with Rutman by email to ask his opinion on some points, as is quoted in footnote 154)[4]. By the way, I would like to congratulate Anne McDermott on joining Wikipedia in general and the Alternate History aspect of Wikipedia in particular. It is a pity you had to get into such a rough struggle so early on in your Wikipedia career - sometimes you must jump in at the deep end. But the rewards for persisting are many. Good Luck and welcome! Andreas Kaganov (talk) 06:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and don't worry, I am not easily intimidated by rough struggles.Anne McDermott (talk) 06:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That cite just shows the book was mentioned in the novel, where does it say they communicated by email?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Footnote 154: "E-Mail message from Rutman to author, October 21, 2002"[5].Andreas Kaganov (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apoligies, thats what I get for sometimes skimming a post.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like to add that Gavriel D. Rosenfeld, Ph.D is not only the writer of the above-mentioned book but a also a lecturer in (actual) history at the University of California, Los Angeles (Dep. of History & Program of Judaic Studies) [6]. He also referenced "Clash of Eagles" in an article entitled "Why Do We Ask 'What If?' Reflections on the Function of Alternate History" published in "History and Theory", a publication of Wesleyan University devoted to Studies in the Philosophy of History (Vol. 41, No. 4, Theme Issue 41: Unconventional History (Dec., 2002), pp. 90-103)[7] [8]. Blanche of King's Lynn (talk) 12:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those last two links don't work because a lot of people don't have access to those websites. However if you see my earlier post in this discussion I listed on abstract of the article and here is another one:Why Do We Ask “What If?” Reflections on the Function of Alternate History by Gavriel Rosenfeld, article abstract Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the above I found a reference to this book in the 2007 essay ""The Third Reich and Allohistorical Normalization" by Joe Cole [9]. There is also a reference to "Clash of Eagles" in an article in Hungarian [10]. And I would like to add, the numerous entries you get in Google for "Leo Rutman" + "Clash of Eagles", even if they are not enough in themselves to establish notability, should also be taken into consideration. Adam Keller 13:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with a lot of these sources is that they are great if we are going to write an article about The World Hitler Never Made but they aren't very useful in expanding on Clash of Eagles. A bare mention of Clash doesn't help expand the article even if it may establish some notability. Can anyone find an newspaper article, book review, or essay that focuses exclusively on Clash?Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least those quotes give good sound reasons why the page should not be deleted, which is what is being discussed here. Keep the page alive and I promise to search diligently for more information! Anne McDermott (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why I said if it may establish some notability but that again maybe not. A book review by some guy and an article in Hungarian to be used on the English Wikipedia doesn't really help establish notability at all (no offense Adam) and both articles are better suited for not deleting an article about The World Hitler Never Made but not Clash. As I said before a newspaper article like I found for Gray Victory would be perfect, but I have had zero luck with that. I reccomend doing that search your promising now instead of later.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are being unreasonable. "The World Hitler Never Made" does not just make "a bare mention" of Clash. It has a page and half devoted to this book, including quite a detailed plot summary (in fact, I think it would be worthwhile to take some quotes from that and include them in the article itself), and a detailed analysis relating the book to the events at the time of writing (1990, i.e. one year after the fall of the Berlin Wall - and Rosenfeld thinks that this is connected with the happy ending where New Yorkers rebel and finally throw out the Nazis). Rosenfeld did not just read the book itself, he also corresponded with Rutman to ask him what exactly he meant by writing what he did. This is quite a bit more than "a bare mention". So, does this book pass the WP:BK or does it not? Well, we have a book published by a reputable publisher, taken up by a professor of history in a respectable university who tries to understand what the book means, than writes about it in a book of his own and also in an article which is published in an academic publication of another reputable university, then somebody else writes about this book in an essay and also makes an analysis of what the book means, and then it is also taken up in other languages... To me, all this seems quite a bit like "non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience". Adam Keller 22:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, honest question - I could seriously change my entire stance based on your arguments. However, you are missing a key phrase from WP:BK. This phrase is, "has been the subject of non-trivial, published works..." Do you see the major caveat here? Everyone's "keep" argument above is based on "mentioned this" and "referenced in that", when in reality, the criteria demands that this book be the subject of a significant, third-party source. Do you think your argument covers this? Tan ǀ 39 01:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I have now taken the trouble to read thoroughly WP:BK, as you earlier urged me to do and as I indeed should have. And I found there a precise definition of what the subject should mean: "The 'subject' of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment". I think that the sources which these good people have found (thank you all!) fit perfectly within this criteria. When I look at the full text of WP:BK, I think it was drawn up be sensible people who wanted to ensure that Wikipedia would not be swamped by millions of pages on millions of books nobody ever heard of, but not to exclude books which do deserve to be here. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam: note that my problems with the sources involved the sources that you provided and not The World Hitler Never Made. If you read the first posts to this discussion you will see that I was the first to point out Clash appeared in the novel. In fact I provided two sources that pointed this out, so I don't believe I have been unreasonable with that source. My problem has been that all the sources so far deal specifically with World and not with Clash, a point which seems to tell me we could make an article on World should anyone be interested in writing it. No one, however, has yet been able to find a single journal or newspaper article that deals with Clash. I, however, have yet to vote in this discussion and though I'm tempted to say Keep because of World I still would feel better if someone can find at least one source that deals specifically with Clash. Again as I stated before my own research has turned up nothing notable but if you or someone else can find such a source I would have no problem voting keep. Then again based on the current support my vote probably won't matter.Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Clash_of_Eagles&oldid=1166149951"