Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nazism in the Middle East


 * 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   incubate to Article Incubator/Nazism in the Middle East. The arguments here are very evenly split between those advocating deleting it because it's a seriously POV essay, and those advocating keeping it because it's a notable topic. From what I can discern here, both sides are absolutely correct - this is a dreadful article on a reasonable topic. In its current state, which seems mostly to come from a single fringe source, I'm not comfortable leaving it in the mainspace - and it's quite clear that any valid encyclopedia article here will be very substantially changed - so moving it to the incubator at this time seems the appropriate compromise solution. ~ mazca  talk 11:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nazism in the Middle East

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article is a clear attempt to push a particular POV; its creator has a history of POV-pushing and disruptive editing. Stonemason89 (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ironically, you will learn more about mainstream thinking on this subject from reading the discussion on the talk page than from reading the article. The article is based almost exclusively on one non-mainstream source. The article is lousy but that is not a valid reason to delete it if the subject is good. There is a valid subject here. My recommendation is to keep but remove all the POV even if it means reducing the article almost to a stub. This is something I suggested a while back but never followed through on. Ideas discussed on the talk page can then be brought into the article if mainstream sources support them. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  —DanielRigal (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete pure OR... makes week comparisons between practices and Egypt and how they resemble fascism... but no reliable source demonstrates a real link between the two... pure POV pushing... trying to dress up "muslims are nazis" using academic misquotes... Arskwad (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that its not just a POV, but a very ugly one. But wouldn't you agree that Nazi actions and policy in the region is a valid subject for an article (i.e. notable, encyclopaedic) if it is written properly (i.e. from mainstream reliable sources)? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * we could try a different article that tries to pin down something more encyclopedic... but the scope would have to be very clear... it would have to be a WW2 article and not a "allegations than muslim political groups are influenced by the nazis" kind of article... it would literally be a completely different article which is why we would delete this one... even the older version of the article reads like a conspiracy theory... feel free to suggest new article titles... Arskwad (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Little to nothing of value, serves only to push a POV. Throwaway85 (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete POV essay synthesized almost wholly from one questionable source. PhGustaf (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Question: OK. It looks like we are heading towards to a delete outcome. Its no great loss but can we all agree that the deletion is to be without prejudice to recreation if anybody wants to write a decent article on the topic at some point in the future? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:21, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Though it might work better as an addition to Fascism worldwide.  Searches on the current title are unlikely.  PhGustaf (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Rename to Nazi Germany's influence in Egypt. A very encyclopedic topic, listing meetings, organizations started, money given to setup printing press, etc, how they achieved things.  There are references.  I only read through the first part thus far.  If you see something you believe is inaccurate or bias, please tag it, and discuss on the talk page.  What they did caused a lasting effect, they killing off Jews in that country and getting more people to be anti-Semitic which never had a problem with Jews before.  It has references.   D r e a m Focus  18:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete- I agree with DanielRigal and DreamFocus that the topic could potentially be done encyclopedically. But I also think that the current version is so bad that it needs to be entirely rewritten. Best thing to do is nuke it and start afresh. Reyk  YO!  21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't really expect anyone to rewrite it from scratch. Just tag anything that needs a source, or cut it out and put it on the talk page until its worked out.   D r e a m Focus  23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete this is gross distortion of history. While of course there were Nazi sympathizers in Egypt during the war (more to do with the fact that Egypt had been long occupied/governed by the UK) that isn't akin to a spread of the nazi ideology. The strained, rather pathetic attempts to tie the Moslem Brotherhood AND Gamal Abdel Nasser (not exactly pees in a pod, ya know) is just sauce for the goose. This is basically a piece of propaganda, relying largely on guilt-by association, equations of anti-semitism with "being a nazi", etc... in order to make a case that Egyptians (and ina certain sense Arab's by extension) are collectively responsible for the Holocaust (this article obviously leads back to the israel-palestine dispute). Far too much cited to one source that is far, far outside of the academic mainstream of opinion during WWII (which is not to say many egyptians didn't want the nazis to win the war, or also happened to antisemitic, or also later opposed the foundation of Israel. It's just that this wasn't "Nazism." It was for a complex blend of reasons, some good some bad.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:OR. This article is almost entirely based on one reference, and has insurmountable NPOV problems.    Snotty Wong   yak 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The original article was something else . It listed the Nazi documents in Germany where all the research started from.  It then list how the Jews were accepted in Egypt originally, holding seats in Parliament and working in the palace even!  Showing this and then the actions of the Nazi Germans, followed by the results, is quite encyclopedic.  The article just needs to be done in a proper manner.  AFD is not cleanup, it suppose to be a last resort.  I don't see any recent discussions on the talk page.   D r e a m Focus  23:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

"Just as Nazi propaganda in Germany and Europe was doing, the German Arabic-language broadcasts accustomed ... to “describe to the Egyptians how the Nazi policies here enumerated would actually be applied in practice in Egypt if the ..." "Axis propaganda was available in Egypt, having infiltrated into the country before the start of World War II through German staff officers, diplomats, and Nazi dignitaries who visited Egypt trying to attract nationalists to their cause. ..."
 * Possible references found in Google book search.
 * Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World by Jeffrey Herf - 2009 - 335 pages
 * Egypt from independence to revolution, 1919-1952 Selma Botman - 1991

Surely there are plenty of books out there about this moment in history, which could be used for references, speaking of how the Nazis infiltrated Egypt.  D r e a m Focus  00:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The first version of the article has this: Egypt’s Hassan al-Banna and his Muslim Brothers are known as the first promoters of modern jihadism. They developed their ideas and methods under the direct influence of the German Third Reich’s political and propaganda machine. Al-Banna’s unique contribution was to mix Koranic teachings with Hitler’s obsessive wish to destroy the Jewish state. Quite encyclopedic? Hassan al-Banna died in 1949, yet he and Hitler (who died even earlier) were "obsessed with destroying a Jewish state" that didn't exist in their life time? The Muslim Brotherhood's core beliefs and ideologies have nothing to do with either Israel or "jihaddism." You're out of your element if you think they do (or you think that's anywhere approaching the scholarly consensus.) Their core ideas evolved far, far away from the "direct influence" of the Third Reich. Yes there are plenty of books about Egypt during WWII, Nazi infiltration etc... None of the credible ones support any of this garbage, or indeed make any case for Nazism in Egypt. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are obviously other sources available for this such as Germany and the Middle East, 1871-1945. Note that there were significant links between Nazi Germany and Afghanistan/Iraq/Persia during the thirties, so it's not just Egypt that we're dealing with here.  If the current version of the article is not yet finished then it is our editing policy to keep at it.  "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Policy of Nazi Germany in the Middle East would literally be a completely different article... different geographic scope first of all... second of all it would have a different scope in time... finally it would focus on actual policy and actions... the current article represents a WP:FRINGE theory from Matthias Küntzel... Arskwad (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Userfy or Incubate until the article no longer reads like a biased essay ripped from a single source. Abductive  (reasoning) 10:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a personal POV essay, not suitable for wikipedia. If a valid article could be written with this title, it would be better to start fresh. This is not a good base. Verbal chat  15:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is based on a single source, a non-academic book that pushes a fringe view. TFD (talk) 15:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: The topic of collaboration with the Nazis in the Middle East is valid, but this article is distorted, it should be reduced to a neutral stub. Related material is covered at Islam and antisemitism. Egypt is missing from Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II, though Palestine is mentioned. Fences  &amp;  Windows  19:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep (perhaps by userifying or incubating). However, the article needs a great deal of pruning and sharpening up.  I am not happy with the present title, possibly Middle Eastern collaboration with Nazi Germany.  It is probably too heavily based on one source (or a very few), but teh topic is a valid one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The reason given for this article to be deleted is that it has POV problems. The solution is to fix the POV problems, not to delete.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The very title (and concept) of this article is POV, which means that the only way to fix the POV problem is to delete the article. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Cdogsimmons.. and I'm no scholar or historian, but I don't think this concept is just someone's POV, there's no denying that Nazism did have a real effect in the Middle East, and this article, biased as it may be, deals with a historical topic. Something which Wikipedia should at least cover it in some way. Perhaps we can salvage the useful bits to merge into Fascism worldwide? -- &oelig; &trade; 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though Nazism operated in the Middle East we need to show that it has been treated as a topic in academic literature before writing about it. The only existing literature is highly controversial and has not been published within academic literature.  The term Middle East itself is ambiguous.  See the map.  Which geographic borders should the article use?  TFD (talk) 21:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * stonemason is right.. the article is POV because the title and scope are OR... imagine "Nazi influence in the Republican party"... maybe there might be a few nazis who were once republicans or even developed relationships with republicans... but the majority of the article would descend into a bunch of fringe comparisons between the republican party platform and nazi germany.. this article is in essence the same... it takes one policy memo from WW2 and then extrapolates using original research and fringe sources to make comparisons between muslims and nazis... the source from kuntzel has no place in wikipedia except in an article about Matthias Küntzel... Arskwad (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is nothing inherently POV in the title since Nazism influenced politics in many parts of the world, as indeed justified by references currently present in this article.Biophys (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename. A topic - though currently light on links - backable by scholarly research such as -- Pedant17 (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and discuss the contents. We do not delete because of POV problems, and there are sufficient sources to show this a notable topic.    DGG ( talk ) 03:35, 2 July 2010 (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.