Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic Mein Kampf

Arabic Mein Kampf

Arabic Mein Kampf (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism. There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic - most of the cited sources contain only a couple of pages or less on the subject out of hundreds of pages (some only a sentence!), and most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles. One of the scholarly sources even states that Mein Kampf did not figure prominently in Arabic-language Nazi propaganda. The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Well, here we go again: first, as far as sources go a. I'm inclined to accept the two newspapers cited as Reliable Sources b. I think the article could probably be kept on the basis of the books by Herf, Gottreich/Schroeter, and Mallman/Cuppers/Smith. Those three books appears to be published by pretty reputable publishers, and discussion of the translation is (in my opinion, at least) non-trivial. Second, we could just clean up the POV and accuracy issues without deleting. If the POV problems are that bad, we could just stub the article and re-build rather than deleting it. I've rescued a few articles that way recently. Third, I think this needs a new title, maybe something a bit broader like Mein Kampf in the Arab World or something. Fourth, worst case scenario, a selective merge to Mein Kampf would probably be a better idea than outright deletion. Qrsdogg (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that the POV problem here can be corrected through normal editing, since the POV problem is the existence of the article when we do not have articles on Mein Kampf in any other language or on its reception by any other ethnic group. (Lest you think this is a WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument, no, it's a WP:UNDUE argument.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think the fact that we have uneven coverage here is a good reason to start more articles, rather than delete this one. The history of the English and Russian translations of MK would probably be pretty interesting. In any case, Stefan Wild's work on the topic seem to be a pretty solid academic source, certainly more than just a page or two there. Qrsdogg (talk) 03:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep Big fat yawn. Obvious POV push delete by Roscelese who barely can contain her anger or provide evidence why this should deleted. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"I disagree with her reasons" =/= "She has not provided reasons." Indeed, I have provided several: an unfixable POV problem and a lack of notability in the sources that matter. But thanks for the personal attack and the tone argument, dude. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with your crusade. Plot Spoiler (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I see solid references. Stating that the existence of this article by itself is POV while it is WP:V sounds contradictory. --DeVerm (talk) 03:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC).

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — OSborn ^arf_contribs. 03:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep It looks like the nominator is here to delete me and not the article.

“ There is no indication that Arabic translations of Mein Kampf are a particularly notable topic ”

• I've done search in Scholar with the search criteria:"Mein Kampf" and "Arabic"

  Here's what I got. Of course not all of these are on the subject, but many are.

“ most of the rest are conservative newspapers rather than scholarly books or journal articles ”

• Right now the article is using 10 sources, including:

1. University of Michigan Press
2. Yale University Press
3. Brill Publishers
4. Cambridge University Press
5. Indiana University Press
6. Stanford University Press

• So from 10 sources used 6 are scholarly books.

“ Obvious POV-pushing by an editor who only days ago had her topic ban on Arab-Israeli topics lifted - a topic ban that was imposed because of this user's history of disruption, POV-pushing, and anti-Arab racism ”

• The editor, who is accused in anti-Arab racism wrote following articles just to name a few:

1. Allah_Made_Me_Funny
2. Liar_paradox_in_early_Islamic_tradition
3. Comedians_of_Middle_East_conflict
4. Yoni_Jesner_and_Ahmed_Khatib
5. The_Mountain_of_Israeli-Palestinian_Friendship
6. Arab_rescue_efforts_during_the_Holocaust

“ The lack of notability of this particular translation combined with the transparent attempt on the part of the creator to link Arabs and Nazis makes this a good candidate for deletion. ”

• I did not link Arabs to Nazis, I only used reliable sources and let's see the names of the sources:

1. Icon of Evil: Hitler's Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam.
2. Mein Kampf for sale, in Arabic.
3. Their Kampf Hitler’s book in Arab hands"
4. Nazi propaganda for the Arab world
5. National Socialism in the Arab near East between 1933 and 1939
6. Nazi Palestine: The Plans for the Extermination of the Jews in Palestine
7. A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad

• and here are a few sources I have not yet used:

1. Arab and Muslim Anti-Semitism in Sweden
2. "History Upside Down: The Roots of Palestinian Fascism "
3. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World
4. Hitler Put Them in Their Place”: Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood's Jihad Against Jews, Judaism

• Should I go on?

  The section of Arab who denounced the book is included in the article.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No speedy keep criteria apply to this nomination. We've been through this before - your personal belief that your articles are good and that I am bad is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep if I ever saw one. The book is highly notable, any Arabic translations/editions, given the long history of postwar AI worries in the ME, are likewise more than notable enough for an article on en:WP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep Mbz1 has proven that all reasons nominated in the deletion request are as far away from reality as possible. Broccolo (talk) 03:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Your personal belief that Mbz is good, and that her own personal belief that I am bad must therefore be correct, is not a speedy keep criterion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Speedy keep and move to Mein Kampf in the Arab World or something similar. This would be a little more broader than the language itself. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, no speedy keep criteria apply here. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone care to actually address the issues in the nomination? I pointed out that many of these mentions were trivial and that most of the in-depth sources were not of the quality that we should be asking for in such an exhaustively written-about topic as Nazi history. I also pointed out that the existence of the article creates a NPOV problem through WP:UNDUE, in that we suggest that there is more to say about the Arabic translation than any other translation. None of the keep votes have addressed these comments, instead preferring to cite a policy that doesn't apply here and to complain about the chutzpah I'm showing in daring to nominate an article by Mbz1. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Merge to Mein Kampf and Nazi relations with the Arab world. There's nothing notable about this particular translation. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Nothing notable about the prevalence of the key book of Nazi literature in the Arab-Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is endemic? Even Malcom Little had more intellectual honesty. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs a stern hand to de-POV it and make it conform more rigorously to its scholarly sources such as Jewish Culture and Society in North Africa, A Genealogy of Evil: Anti-Semitism from Nazism to Islamic Jihad and section II of "National Socialism in the Arab Near East Between 1933 and 1939". It also should be renamed to something like Mein Kampf in the Arabic language.
  The 1985 Stefan Wild source devotes a strong section to Arabic translations of Mein Kampf, providing the article with notability. Binksternet (talk) 04:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and Rename to Mein Kampf in the Arabic language I don't agree that the newspapers article in The Daily Telegraph and The National Review are poor sources nor do I think they should be outright dismissed-- what kind of newspapers, for example, would be sufficient enough for the nominator? The newspaper articles are sufficiently independent of the subject matter, and they cover the book in-depth about its sales and its controversy. The translation is also discussed several times in this book, where I did a search highlighting appropriate usage of the terms. I agree that some sources are pretty lousy (such as this one or this one), because they do not provide sufficient coverage. But, using multiple sources to demonstrate notability through cumulative impact is legitimate. After reading through the sources provided by the here in the AfD as well as the current ones on the article, I don't believe the attempt to establish notability of the topic has been transparent. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 04:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I do think it should be renamed to something with Mein Kampf as the first two words in the article title. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Snow Keep. Per the overwhelming consensus to keep this article, as expressed above, because it meets GNG. One big TROUT to the nom -- poor nomination, as evidenced by its poor reception at this AfD.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Or evidence of the success of Yesha Council and Israel Sheli. -- SmashTheState (talk) 09:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Having an article devoted to the translated version of a book is bizarre. Having that said, as deletion discussions are polls, the article will be kept due to "no consensus", as there are plenty of socks of banned users, POV-pushers etc out there. My advice is to at least rename the article to "Mein Kampf (Arabic translation)" or something similar. That would be less embarrassing. --Frederico1234 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)