Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnum Crimen


 * 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. Discussion about a separate article on the author can be discussed on the article's or related project's page and outside this AFD. MuZemike 23:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnum Crimen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I know I'm asking for trouble but I'm not sure that this article actually Notability_(books). It's mostly primary sources and while there are some non-trivial published works discussing it, I don't see it actually being the "subject" of much. I've heard that this work is supposed to be very significant and an extremely detailed reference but without evidence of that, I'm not sure it's enough. I'm aware of possibly systemic bias issues but I'm also discouraged to see (for what it's worth) that there are no references in either of the interwiki versions either. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The Washington Times piece only mentions the Magnum Crimen as an example of a "hostile source" used by Richard West for his "Tito and the Rise and Fall of Yugoslavia" book, the real subject of the piece.
 * The Bundy book I don't know about but the talk archives show that I've been concerned about what exactly it adds.
 * The Lampe citation is to a footnote and really doesn't have more.
 * The Neubauer reference is about two sentences and is more Novak than the book.
 * Harris just has a single sentence on the subject.
 * The Lovrenovic reference really doesn't have more than a single sentence to it.
 * comment It would make much more sense to turn this into an article on the author, who has written other books. I think there;s not much question that he;d be notable--the number of publications listed at the Serbian WP is quite impressive:  -- and it's translation via Google at    DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that would eliminate much of the content in this article. Creating a Novak article would make sense (but is a completely separate point) and perhaps a redirect can be done afterwards.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would that eliminate significant content? An article on an author can discuss his books?   DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, I guess I wasn't thinking about that. That actually makes sense.  So perhaps your suggestion is to move to Viktor Novak? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * New article on author (Is that an option?) I'm inclined to agree with DGG here. It sounds like the book may not be notable, especially considering Ricky81682's research. This article has been contentious enough in the past, so let's redirect it to a new article on the author, which I suppose I'll start working on before this AfD ends... hopefully. AniMate   draw  05:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't that separate? I agree with DGG as well.  So as to this article, what? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Evidently a very notable book that continues to be discussed and cited recently in English language texts (in addition to the articles noted by others) such as Culture wars, Volume 17 By Ultramontane Associates, Inc, American Center for Law and Justice, The Church in the modern age By Hubert Jedin, Gabriel Adriányi, John Dolan , Kosovo-Serbia: a just war? By Frank H. Columbus as well as numerous European texts. An article on the author would be good also. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:30, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see the word "subject" at Notability (books). I'm fully aware of further one-line references (or citations). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This Google Books search shows that the book has been regularly cited, with most hits seeming to be in footnotes or bibliographies, but these two appear to have at least some discussion of this book in the main text. Does anyone have access to the full text of those to check whether the coverage is substantial? Google Scholar just finds another bunch of citations and a few sentences in this paper, which may or may not be peer-reviewed - I can't see any reviews or other substantial coverage there. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a copy of Beyond Yugoslavia local to me, so I can check on that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect into article on author, per DGG. CoM's citations do not establish enough notability for an independent article. The author probably deserves an article into which (most of) this can be pasted. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Vjesnik page-length article about the book itself calls it "possibly the most controversial historical-non-fiction book published [in Yugoslavia] from 1945 to 1990" (možda najproturječnija povijesno-publicistička knjiga objavljena od 1945. do 1990.). GregorB (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions.  —GregorB (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Just wanted to respect those who have a clear idea what is the knowledge that this book contains. In order to support this noble cause, from this Google search, I've found (what I alredy knew) that this book is a reference book of many libraries of the American first tier universities: Princeton, Columbia, Yale, Harward, Notre Dame, Stanford, Berkley then of University of Toronto, McGill in Canada and of Oxford and Cambridge in England. At the end, my apologies to those two serious men (without their consent) who provided very good insight into this book for taking this article as an example of the assault on the knowledge and serious academic efforts.

I bet that the proposer will get proper support from those of his (or her?) educational and intellectal level. Consequently, I've already copied the article, 'contributions' (discussion, article text changes) of the proposer and his supporters, response of Mr Wales to my note on his talkage - as an evidence why American universites and colleges have strong stance against Wikipedia.--208.103.155.128 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, I'm not sure what you mean. I don't see anything at my talk page, your talk page, nor at User talk:Jimbo Wales, nor do I see anything edits of this particular IP address (included deleted edits) that clarify.  If this is related to the edits by User talk:208.103.155.74, Jimbo removed the prior discussion and that act was discussed further here.  May I suggest asking the other individual for advice if you don't wish to speak to me.  Otherwise, yes, I'm aware that the book exists at a number of libraries (including a few quite local to me).  However, that fact is part of an explicitly noted exclusionary criteria of our standard, not a sufficient condition to determine notability.  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment This book is a subject and an academic book (according to the Wikipedia criteria), therefore a notable book. To learn it - read a great number of references where this book is cited.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The proposed deletion reasons are very poor. Calling upon the Wikipedia rule, then supplying information from un-academic and irelevant sources about this book (written by people who are not historians) as an (poor) input to this rule, then arbitrary interpreting and calling upon the Wikipedia rules, leads nowhere. "(including a few quite local to me)" is yet another false claim, which is visible from the discussion this user (Ricky81682) had on the article talkpage and from the list of libraries generated by the Google search. So, the fact is: a great number of historians (worldwide) referenced this book a great number of times and the book is a reference book of the leading academic institutions worldwide. Among the historians of the German language I would like mentioning Karheinz Deschner (Mit Got und den Faschisten) and Martin Broszat (Der kroatische Ustaschastaat). Moreover, this user (Ricky81682) was involved into harassing other two users who contributed most of the article content - which is clearly visible in the archive of the article talkpage.--153.39.144.187 (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, per ChildofMidnight and GregorB and in being consistant with my voting on Wiki and trying to preserve what I consider worthy info for generations to come. Although I do not much like what this book talks about, it is important to point out things and actions that are simply wrong within religions in order for change to begin (and I was raised a Croatian Catholic). Citations and notabilty is there, if by nothing else then by common sense. Against merge to author article. Book stands alone, is vastly cited and controversial. One could almost say that the author is known in lieu of that work, not that the work is known due to popularity of author. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Earlier I was on the fence, but I'm convinced now that this article should be kept as being about a book which has had a significant impact, based on how often it has been cited. If specific reference to guidelines is needed then check out WP:BK: "notability should rely on...how widely the book is cited by other academic publications or in the media". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment In order to counteract this assault on this article (the AfD above) and previous assaults on their authors - I've copied the un-censored version of the article which will be basis for the Russian, French, and Spanish language versions. I'll appreciate any help from those who supported keeping this article alive on the English Wikipedia.--138.88.255.130 (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2009 (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.