Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Problems with content that do not require a full rewrite should be listed at WP:RFC instead. L'Aquatique  [  talk  ] 03:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Review of a book based entirely on copy-pasted outbursts of political propaganda found online. Facts, drawn from the book, were long corrected by Yad Vashem whose scientific findings are not even mentioned, because they’re not a part of the book. There's already an article on the subject of this book featured in Wikipedia. However, the impression maintained in the article is that the writer was merely presenting original and undisputed facts, which is false. The article contains elements of hate speech. It equates Polish people with the Nazis with coded messages disguised as citations. On top of that, the article is plastered with words of praise flying in the face of WP: Peacock i.e. "You read it breathlessly" and so on. Poeticbent talk  18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.   —Poeticbent  talk  22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been removed from the list of Literature-related deletion discussions as that is clearly an inappropriate place to list a history book. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Speedy keep The book satisfies WP:BOOK. Also, Gross has a novel interpretation of the causes of post-WW2 antisemitism in Poland that is not covered in any other article about Jewish-Polish history. The article includes a summary of the book's content and well-sourced criticism and praise for the book. Finally, WP:PEACOCK applies to the narrative voice, not quotes from reviews by others. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note, this nomination is not about the book, but about the ill-fated article spiked with loaded messages inserted into it from online outbursts of racial sentiments. --Poeticbent talk  22:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again, it doesn't work like that here. This forum is for deciding whether or not there should be an article on the topic of the book. If you don't like the content of the article, then the proper forum to address that is WP:RfC. Gamaliel (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I will do as you say, because my standards are higher than this. In fact I already started working on a new case, but I will wait for the comments. This has been an interesting experiment in PR for me. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but not a single Polish editor cast a vote in this nomination so far (see below), except for an admin who probably believes that he can withstand the negative sentiment. One user, who never worked on Poland-related articles was more than enthusiastic; while, the actual discourse remained painfully familiar to me. --Poeticbent talk  02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I will do as you say, because my standards are higher than this. In fact I already started working on a new case, but I will wait for the comments. This has been an interesting experiment in PR for me. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but not a single Polish editor cast a vote in this nomination so far (see below), except for an admin who probably believes that he can withstand the negative sentiment. One user, who never worked on Poland-related articles was more than enthusiastic; while, the actual discourse remained painfully familiar to me. --Poeticbent talk  02:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep. Well and widely reviewed academic book by a Princeton professor. AfD is not the place for edit warring, please don't bring that article's edit war here. Gamaliel (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book is notable. POV problems are not an argument for deletion (just as in Articles for deletion/Polish death camp controversy). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Confrontational nature of this ill-fated article is magnified by the fact that no evidence is given in the article for any of the allegations made thereafter. It is a propaganda piece based in loaded messages meant to produce an emotional rather than rational response. --Poeticbent talk  19:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment An article about a book shouldn't comment about the veracity of the book's claims. It should quote the comments of others who have questioned them, which this article does in the "Reception" section. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Speedy keep. The book's notable and the topic is encyclopaedic. -- S Marshall  Talk / Cont  19:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I hope nominator will withdraw nomination, that has no chance to succeed anyway, before it turns into yet another flame battlefield. M0RD00R (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - this article could be deleted as per WP:PLOT (content section), and as per WP:SOAP (reception section) - Wikipedia is NOT a place to place lenghty fiction plot summaries or book reviews which this article is overwhelmed with. greg park avenue (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. How does this compare to (deleted) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God's Playground: Volume I - Chapter Synopsis? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't in any way, besides, I requested DRV for that one Deletion review/Log/2008 August 11. Hope, will be back in a week or so. greg park avenue (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The summary of Fear makes up less than 1/3 of the article. I don't see how that can be compared to an article that consisted entirely of a summary. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That article actually consisted of one big giant cut 'n paste job. Boodlesthecat Meow? 23:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think those are reasons to clean up, not delete. Hobit (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, obviously. Seems like everything related to Jan T. Gross gets nominated for deletion sooner or later. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Question. What makes you think that this nomination is about the book or its author? No. It isn’t. It is about hate speech featured prominently in a review of a review of a book, a review from a trade magazine equating Polish nation with the Nazis. Fix that, and the nomination will loose its teeth. Or perhaps, the nomination should be re-listed as Partisan screed, opinion masquerading as fact, or Libelous, defamatory, or slanderous comments under Libel. What do you say? --Poeticbent talk  15:30, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is an issue for the talk page of the article. The only question for this forum is should a Wikipedia article on this topic exist. Gamaliel (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is a subject of an intense edit war with outside examples of hate mongering and political propaganda copy-pasted into it right from the inception. The article has cancer. --Poeticbent</b> talk  16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So you agree that you are using the deletion process as a continuation of your participation in an edit war. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. You're wrong. I have long abandoned this article as being hopelessly flawed. The article needs to be deleted or recreated from scratch by a more competent editor without a hidden agenda. --<b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk  17:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Flattery will get you nowhere. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Please note that it is entirely possible to have a perfectly valid article about a wholly disreputable book (see, for instance, Did Six Million Really Die). I have no other opinion on this case. DS (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - However, it needs to be shortened for greater concision and be thoroughly cleaned up and copyedited. Also brings up an interesting question - does this inadvertantly create a 'Fear' namespace :P ? Brilliantine (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment--it's snowing. Upgrade my recommendation to speedy keep.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  12:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: the above recommendation posted by User:S Marshall has been repeated twice for display purposes. <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:darkblue;">Poeticbent</b> talk
 * Keep and improve because it reliable and valid. IZAK (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 19:20, 14 August 2008 (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.