Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adolf Hitler in popular culture


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 04:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler in popular culture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Trivia collection (unacceptable per WP:FIVE), or, if you prefer, a loosely associated group of topics (unacceptable per WP:NOT. Skirts entirely around actual perception of Hitler into random video game and book references. All with nary a citation to offend the eye. Eyrian 01:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT,as well as some WP:V and WP:OR just like all other "in popular culture" lists. No sources, no critieria for "popular culture", article tells us nothing about Der Führer (sp?), etc. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and like the majority of other "in popular culture" lists. Pharmboy 02:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Surprising it's existed for three years and this is the first nomination for deletion. There's no doubting that Hitler has been a pop culture figure for nearly 75 years; a lot of editors have created this one in great detail.  Article tells us nothing about Der Fuhrer, perhaps, but does it really need to?  Does anyone not know who Hitler was?  Mandsford 02:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not convincing me this time. Hitler changed the world, no doubt, but as to "popular culture", I don't think it applies here.  His life was a singular event that made permanant changes in the world.  To be "popular" we have to define "current" somewhat, and I think once you get passed 20 or 30 years, this is dicey.  Unless you can show me where he has been more influential in the last 20 years than his actions 60-70 years ago, or on par, then the premise of the entire article is flawed.  Pharmboy 02:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Uh, yes? Surely, everyone knows that Hitler was that German guy that did awful stuff, but this article could have been so much more. A sourced analysis of public perception. Allied versus Axis propaganda, discussion over his vegetarianism, that sort of thing. Instead, we've got worthless trivia that goes nowhere. Before you say it's a starting point, it's not. Arguments should be made from a fresh reading of secondary sources, not starting with references and trying to justify their importance. To do the latter is intellectually dishonest. --Eyrian 02:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT and WP:NOT, someone as famous as this has been referenced thousands of times. The notable references such as Chaplin's film should be mentioned in the Hitler article. Crazysuit 03:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but improve a lot. Hitler had a seat in popular culture (television, books, film) unlike almost any other person. Because he is the subject of much steampunk, which is inherently trivial but still notable, this whole article should definitely be kept. --Tellerman
 * Oh is it? Has that presence been documented in independent, reliable, secondary sources? --Eyrian 03:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you expect of me with requests for "independent, reliable, secondary sources" but I'm sure any fiction book about Hitler or semi-fictional movie about Hitler (for example, Der Untergang) is source enough. --Tellerman
 * That's not independent. You said steampunk mentions of Hitler were inherently notable. I was asking why, as I doubt there are any independent secondary sources. That's what notability entails. That's now what I'm seeing here. --Eyrian 03:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really just said steampunk is notable, so in my mind, I don't see why steampunk with Adolf Hiter wouldn't be notable. I do agree this should be revised. --Tellerman
 * A piece of steampunk that had Adolf Hitler could be notable, but the phenomenon of Adolf Hitler in steampunk (which is a subset of this article) would need to be separately so. --Eyrian 04:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If, btw, you can find secondary sources that discuss how Adolf Hitler is a common or influential element of steampunk literature and entertainment, then please do write that article, as it not only sounds fascinating, but would surely be notable. However, make sure it really is an article, rather than a list of steampunk genre items in which Hitler has appeared.  CaveatLectorTalk 04:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hitler steampunk has half a million ghits. When it's a matter of showing something is important, this is somewhat indicative, But if i were to say that half a billion bloggers indicated some sign of notability, i am sure i would be asked for a published source that there were half a million bloggers, not my own observation from google  But. I expect   I will find a formal source if I go through them all, but  I don't even like this genre -- so I'll stop at, Fantasy and revolution: an interview with China Miéville Issue 88 of INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISM JOURNAL Published Autumn 2000. What we see when we open our eyes exists.  DGG (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In the link you gave, Hitler is mentioned ONCE, in a small list of recommendations the editor gives. If you assumed that 'socialism' equals 'Hitler', you might want to educate yourself on the differences of socialism and national socialism (i.e. socialism is NOT Nazism, and the Nazis actually hated socialists, for the most part).  Also, and this might be more important as far as this discussion and future AfD's go, Google hits do NOT certify notability, nor does a lack of Google hits certify non-notability WP:GHITS.  Ajisukitakahikone gets a measly 430 hits, while Smiths Station High School (my alma mater) gets almost two million.  Which one is more notable?  Which one should have an article and which shouldn't?  Should SSHS now get an article because it has 1.7 Google hits?  Google is no Minerva, nor is it an oracle or any other god of goddess of wisdom to which we should turn to understand the wonders of the universe, including the answer to the question of notability on wikipedia.  You want to do research? Go to a library. CaveatLectorTalk 04:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom. The concept of popular culture demanding articles still baffles me; there is no unifying purpose for this concept in any article. At best these articles are trivia and at worst they are junk. Delete with prejudice. --Storm Rider (talk) 08:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Hitler has been portrayed in popular culture far too often for a possible merge with his biographical article. The controversy surrounding his portrayal, and the changes of interpretation over the years, I think have some encyclopedic merit. Obviously the article needs work in terms of being encyclopedic, but I think it has potential. Furthermore, I think if it were deleted it would eventually be recreated - there is certainly a public fascination with Hitler. Iotha 09:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an indiscriminate collection of information. I'm not arguing that Hitler is not often portrayed in popular culture, but as has already been stated above, this article lacks appropriate independent, third-party sources that explain Hitler's importance in media throughout popular culture.  To point to this list of trivia and say, "see, look how many times Hitler is mentioned/portrayed! it must be notable!" is WP:OR by synthesis.  If these sources exist, however, by all means cut down the article by leaps and bounds and rewrite it. María ( críticame ) 12:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Adolf Hitler was unfortunately a major historical figure, and so useful as a villain that he has been portrayed in films, books, and movies thousands of times.  If the existence of a separate "in popular culture" article can be justified about anybody, it can be justified about Hitler.  AfD is not cleanup, and deletion by the popular-culture bot is no substitute for editing.  Whatever the deficiencies of the current article, we need an article under this title. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - A useful source for expanding this article might be found in this Guardian story. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't get the link to load, but assuming it contains analysis, it'd be a good source for rebuilding the article, not expanding it. --Eyrian 16:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all %SUBJECT% in popular culture lists, they are nothing but trivia and violate the five pillars of Wikipedia as well. Burntsauce 17:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete One big trivia section Lurker  (said · done) 17:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge notable content by switching to a prose format and redirect. If this isn't accomplished, then delete. VanTucky  (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:TRIVIA, OR. Corvus cornix 23:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this generalization of "in popular culture" lists is as much a violation of WP:FIVE as the articles themselves are alleged to be. In this case, I'm voting to keep this one because there is quite a bit of valid information here, including discussion of how he was portrayed within his lifetime. If people have included false info, delete it. I wonder sometimes if it's the bullets that are turning people off. 23skidoo 19:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep if so then why not just censor wikipedia. 172.191.100.66 22:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Again, props to Eyrian. There is nothing redeemable in this article. Complete WP:TRIVIA and tons of WP:OR. Bulldog123 22:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this is not OR. These depictions were in notable books, television programmes, etc. This is not something thought up by the author of the article, which is what we mean with OR.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If you want to delete this article, then hey, go nominate everything in Category:Representations of people in popular culture at once. Or no, wait, nominate everything related to popular culture and other not-so-serious information for deletion. Oh no, wait, nominate everything that isn't about chrysoine resorcinol or High-Level Data Link Control for deletion. Seriously, go find another hobby if you only enjoy deleting useful, informative and encyclopaedic pages.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not a single person has been able to provide an argument as to how these articles inform anybody of anything. CaveatLectorTalk 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Wiki is not paper, there is enough space for such topics. These kind of articles are the only way by which one can trace where topic or person XY has been dealt with; this is one of the main strength of Wikipedia, because a single individual could not gather all this information. And b.t.w., I don't see how WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:V and WP:OR are violated here. Zara1709 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * a request for comment regarding, amongst others, this AfD nomination has been opened at Requests for comment/Eyrian.  Mel sa  ran  (formerly Salaskаn) 21:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: The general topic is apparently also being discussed at WP:VPP. In this case, the article is slightly more than just a collection of unsourced trivia, and the nom carries with it the implication that more than half the popular culture articles here should be axed. Deal with policy first, renom later if appropriate. Personally, I'd say that there's space enough for the vast majority of them, assuming clear notability and adequate references. That said, the article plainly does require some cleanup/source work. MrZaius  talk  22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a collection of loosely associated topics, fails WP:NOT. Jay32183 23:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all # in pop culture articles, I won't bother to mention ALL the different policies these pages violate. The Filmaker 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment While this topic is probably worth having an article on, this isn't it; lists like this are original research, plain and simple, as well as being non-encyclopedic. SamBC 03:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete. Of all the popular culture articles, I thought this one might be one to actually have secondary sources analyzing the portrayal of Hitler. Instead, this is one of the most egregious collections of dubious research in the series. Delete unless someone adds actual secondary sources to establish weight and avoid OR. Cool Hand Luke 08:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * see belowDGG (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

by Lutz P Koepnick, Faschismus in der populären Kultur by Georg Seesslen from OCLC in a 30 second search--added to the article &I'll do a few more. More sources can be added, but not to all of these dozens of articles in 5 days total. Possibly at the rate of one article a week, if the individual items are to be sourced properly as well. They should all be kept, and some agreement reached on which ones to work on first. There's a three way choice here for articles on this or any other subject: good articles, low quality articles, no articles. Only the first of them benefits the encyclopedia. DGG (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (without prejudice to later renomination) per the comments of User:Melsaran and myself at Requests for comment/Eyrian. The nominator is, broadly speaking, right that wikipedia should be purged of inappropriate trivia: however he and the other delete voters in this and a string of related AfDs are immediatists. The right approach is to give the matter considered thought, to review these types of articles with TLC and to extract from them the items that do have merit, and with what's left to consider whether a transwiki is a better option than outright deletion from the world wide web. The greatest weakness of wikipedia is the lack of respect that some members of the community have for the hard work of others, and an inability to see - or even to seek - the diamonds in the rough. AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Request to closing admin if this closes as a delete would you, instead, move it (protected if you feel it necessary) to a sub-page of User:AndyJones? AndyJones 07:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep on this--if any twentieth century figure has had an effect of popular culture in the US and europe, it's Hitler. The adoption of Nazi slogans and names is pervasive--and in fact, there are books on it. It's not my field, but The dark mirror : German cinema between Hitler and Hollywood


 * Strong Keep per.... error error error, too many reasons! Mathmo Talk 23:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, big, important topic. No question of notability whatsoever. Everyking 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.