Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Semitism in International Brigades


 * 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 International Brigades. In a selective manner. No consensus to delete outright, but there are "keep" opinions that are mere votes, and basically most editors seem to agree that this could be an encyclopedic topic but that the current content is unsatisfactory and should not be retained as an article. This does not preclude a more competently written spin-off article later.  Sandstein  13:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Semitism in International Brigades

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article, although extensively footnoted, fails to establish that it is about a known topic, rather than one identified by the original editor. It appears to be largely original research and synthesis, and in fact reads much more like a undergraduate thesis than an encyclopaedia article. RolandR (talk) 23:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: The real problem here is the lack of secondary sources. Some existing citations like Beevor and Prago are perfectly fine as sources. I had already removed the worst parts and fake citations from this horrid article. There also exist some other useable references like this, this, this, this (p. 307), and probably this. The topic is notable, but just barely. It still needs to be extensively rewritten, and large parts of the article thrown away. This could be merged with International Brigades, if this eventually shrinks into a stub due to the original research problems. I would still prefer trying to fix it. Ceosad (talk) 00:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Apollo The Logician (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. The subject may or may not be notable, but the article is a mess. It's written in the passive voice, none of the opinions are attributed, and it reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:SYNTH. attributes a Stein 2015 book but doesn't even identify the book itself! It's one of the primary references and there's no book title, ISBN, etc. This certainly reads like an essay and I suspect this should have been written in an academic environment rather than self-published here.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 17:36, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: The book in question is Sygmunt Stein, Moja wojna w Hiszpanii, Kraków 2015, ISBN 9788308055243. I removed over 49 kilobytes of the article a few days ago. Here is a link to an old revision that identifies all of the works. The article in that shape should indeed have been published somewhere else than on Wikipedia... Ceosad (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- While WP prefers secondary sources, primary ones are not forbidden. Stein 2015 certainly needs to be identified, as do any others lost by pruning to what is now an appropriate length.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, we need to identify teh apparantley remove source cited as "Stein".E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Sources: The Spanish Civil War: A Modern Tragedy, George R. Esenwein, Routledge, 2005, has a substantial, sourced  section on Anti-Semitism in the International Brigades.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Definetly notable, TNT or extensivly copyedit to make it encyclopedic. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 16:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Redirect to a short section International Brigades. Article is sourced, but it is nevertheless a POV ESSAY that attempts to tar the Marxist International Brigades with antisemitism, a phenomenon not found among the Republicans.  Well, of course there was no antisemitism among the Republicans, there were virtually no Jews in Spain and no Jewish volunteers went to Spain to volunteer with the Falange because the Falange was  fascist.  By contrast, Jews form around the world flocked to join the popular Front, in part because Marxism had enormous support among the Jewish working class and intellectuals of the era, and in part because, well, Spain was the one place in the world where you could volunteer for a war in which you could pick up a gun and shoot a Fascist.  Was there antisemitism within the Popular front?  Undoubtedly; there was antisemitism everywhere in the 1930s.  A small section on this topic at  International Brigades is sensible.  We can redirect teh salvageable bits there or we should Delete this poorly-sourced POV ESSAY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. A vote for deletion because of essay wp:TNT leaps out at me.  Such votes are always invalid, and concede the validity of the topic, as laid out in essay wp:TNTTNT (named that way because TNT should be blown up).  Tag for rewrite, sure. -- do  ncr  am  05:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * you have given zero reasoning as to how this article meets notability guidelines. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a mark of sad desperation when an editor is reduced to citing his own essay. Why not be honest and say we should keep it because you like it? — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like an instance on an editor committed to a principle. Please WP:AGF.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hope you'll revisit and consider the arguments for redirect.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete following edits intended as improvements to the original entry, it now features 1) inconsistent footnotes 2) since edits were mostly about cutting out sentences, those left do not form logical sequences and at times make no rhyme or reason at all 3) paragraphs dealing with key questions, "what was anti-Semitism in IB?" and "how much was anti-Semitism there in IB?" are entirely cut out, which makes what is left discussing peripheral issues. All in all: the original entry was certainly far from perfect, but following the improvemts made it is now a pathetic, disorganized sham.--Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * — Unsereveranstaltungen (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. created this article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * would you agree the above is a nice sample of stigmatization? --Unsereveranstaltungen (talk) 20:40, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - Ethanlu121 (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 13:54, 17 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to International Brigades; anything useful can be picked up from the article history. The current version is eligible for WP:TNT with statements such as "It seems that in 1936 it was international politics..." etc, which looks to be editorialising / OR. The article in general spends too much on general discussion, including the poverty of Jews in Eastern Europe, which is off topic for the article. A redirect will preserve the article history, and whatever is reliably cited can be used in the target article. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment 6 keep, 4 delete, 2 redirect. Non admin closure plz. No !votes in 5 days.L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I really think this needs to be assessed and closed by an admin. Two of the Keep 'votes' offered no reasons whatsoever, the original author of the article has 'voted' delete, and the arguments need to be considered, not simply counted. RolandR (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur with RolandR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Antisemitism in Spain. The antisemitism of the Spanish Left is notable, as is that of the Right. They are distinct phenomena and this article was clearly an intention to delve into a more unsavoury aspect of the Second Republic. As it stands, however, it is a mess. The lead, for instance, refers to the Nationalists as if they have something to do with the topic. Whatever was worthwhile in the original version can be incorporated into Antisemitism in Spain, a rich topic where currently all the history is crammed into the lead. Srnec (talk) 03:02, 24 February 2017 (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.