Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Germany Must Parish

Anything which is headed by a description of it as a "story" by the ICR (noted holocaust denial group), and has a misspelled word in its title ought to be suspicious enough. As it is, it contains almost no useful information, on top of all of that. Do they mean "prized" when they say "priced"? Who knows? In short: incoherent entry which has some unknown or loose ties to something published by a holocaust denial group. Taking up space. --Fastfission 21:09, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: I've corrected the spelling in the article title but not the rather peculiar method of listing on VfD (someone who understands it might have a go) . The book does seem to exist, so the issue seems to be, was it really written when claimed? If so, keep and clean up. But the Google hits I investigated could all have been propaganda or naively based on propaganda. Andrewa 22:17, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: The link now added to edit the subpage makes this way of listing workable, perhaps even good. Glad I didn't try to fix it myself. Andrewa 22:21, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It is still incoherent and probably propaganda at best. I'd say drop it -- if somebody out there thinks this is really important enough to warrant an entry then it will be up to them to fix it up appropriately, as it is stands the main hits it comes up with on on Google -- hell, the entire first page -- are all Holocaust Revisionist pages: www.codoh.com, www.ihr.org, www.ety.com/berlin/, www.radioislam.org/germany/, www.corax.org/revisionism/, www.resistance.com, www.stormfront.org, www.h-ref.de (and one list to a useless 'faqfarm.com' and a zshop on amazon.com). It's incoherent enough that I can't figure out entirely what their angle is (that a few Americans proposed and maybe even supported nasty eugenic solutions to get rid of Nazis? Would that further Holocaust Revisionism ideology somehow? Doesn't make sense to me, but whatever). As it stands I'd say there might be an interesting article to write about how Holocaust Revisionists seem to find this book significant to advancing their ideology, but that isn't the entry which currently exists, and it wasn't at all the spirit in which the current entry was submitted. I say delete it outright -- if someone wants to write that entry in the future, they'll still have the option, yes? --Fastfission 23:59, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Library catalogs show that the book exists, published in 1941. If it was indeed notable at that time (as the article says), it might be worth an article. Weak keep, since I have not verified anything expect existence . Andris 04:08, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * does it has an ISBN no.? I can't find that one. // Rogper 23:26, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: Probably not. ISBNs weren't issued before 1966, and none of the catalogues I've found it in provide one, nor do the political sites promoting it. But there's no complete online list of ISBNs yet, so it's hard to say. Andrewa 13:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Now stubified. The original text was taken from political sites and largely unverifiable, and needed some major spelling and grammar work as the author is not a native english speaker. (However I found it quite coherent.) The fact that there is so much misinformation centred on this particular work makes our article especially important IMO. Google does not generally find library catalog entries (it found only one in this case). Andrewa 04:55, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Good work! I change my vote to "Keep". Andris 05:17, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * remove. Note: I started the article but regret it and I don't want to have my signature in the history on "Germany must perish". I have wrote some articles about the dark past in history (and was, in an ironical way, glad to find a anti-theory even if I wouldn't existed if it would have been set into practice.) But the source is not relaible; can someone state the ISBN no.? After trying to look up things, I can't find an official "anti-theory", nor I find the antropologist professor in Harvard that IHR refers to, thus indicating it have no impact on the research domain. The text on IHR must have been edited because "note 27" is missing .  Please remove my signature so that it cannot be associated with me it and paste it anynomously if it is going to be kept so my signature is removed. Am I the first person regretting an edit!? :-)

I don't want the article to remain with my signature. If wikipedia shall save this article, then I suggest you remove it and enter the new information. It is also so much change so that I don't want to be associated with it (see the GFDL text.) // Rogper 20:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * Comment: This is not a reason for deletion. I'm very sorry about the position in which this places you, although I also think you overestimate the likelihood that anyone will read the history and connect you with it. But it's a general principle of the Internet that you must think carefully before you write, because once you have sent or saved something it is quite possible it will become a permanent record. There are some valid reasons for deleting history, but a change of heart is not one of them. Andrewa 09:28, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't see that such arguing comforms to the GNU Document Free Licens, that covers modified versions. I wrote a fictious article about Germany must parish, not perish. This article was was a fable and according to the norms on Wikipedia, it should be removed. I think that its current version -- with new title and content -- does not clearly distinguishes it from mine, which is the GFDL agreements. And since it Germany must parish does not suite on Wikipedia, it must be removed. // Rogper 14:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)