Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM and the Holocaust

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IBM and the Holocaust

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

Dubious notability and serious undue weight to the point of POV pushing - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:48, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As an article on the book this is an valid topic. The review from the New York Times and the award of "Best Non-Fiction Book of the Year" are sufficient to establish notability. There are also plenty of other reviews available such as 1, 2 and 3 giving even more notability. The synopsis needs to be shortened in my opinion but we should have an article on the book and this is not a valid reason for deletion. Davewild (talk) 16:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I totally understand the point about POV pushing after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The New York Times and the Holocaust (2nd nomination), but it was a NY Times Best Seller (#7 on non fiction list it appears) [1]. My editorial preference is that the synopsis of the book be reduced to 1-2 paragraphs, i.e., remove the thesis statement, etc.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 18:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to IBM during World War II, where most of the non-primary source references are duplicated. While NPOV is never a reason to delete an article on a notable topic--since NPOV can and should be fixed by editing--if the article was NPOV-ized and removed of COATRACK material, there really wouldn't be enough there to justify an article on the book separate from the merge target I propose. If consensus is that this book is itself notable, it needs to be seriously rewritten such that the book's arguments are presented as just that--arguments--rather than established facts. Jclemens (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - It's an article about a book. It summarizes the book. The arguments made in the book are based upon documented facts, but when one is describing a book's arguments, thesis, ideas, one should call them what they are: arguments, thesis, ideas. If I or any other editor started portraying arguments as "facts," THAT'S what would be seriously in violation of NPOV: "Black PROVES..." No. Black ARGUES... Carrite (talk) 14:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again, I am confused by a AfD such as this. The inline citations clearly show this book is notabile. The synopsis is a bit long and could really be cut down, but that is a problem for editing, not deletion. How exactly should an article about a best-selling book be merged into another article? This is an article about a book, one that should be referenced in the other article (if revelant). Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. I am so bold that I won't even give a reason, it should be self evident. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Book has won an award and was a best-seller.Autarch (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:UNDUE refers to "minority views", and clearly is about minority views within informed scholarship, not minority views within the population at large. Baldly asserting that the article gives undue weight to the book's findings does not prove that it does - and it certainly doesn't establish a case for deleting the article! Try harder!--greenrd (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Preliminary note: I'm a primary contributor to this piece. Philosophically, I'm not in love with the notion that "every book gets its page on Wikipedia." That said, there are more and less important books, and this one tends to the "more important" end of the spectrum. It was a best seller for non-fiction, which should be a slam dunk for notability. I have done my best to make sure the coverage of the content of the book is accurate and even-handed. I wish the title was IBM and the Holocaust (book), but that has been handled via talk page discussion and the current title stands according to established WP policy. I think the book is worthy of coverage as a subject itself and that any merger with IBM during World War II would be artificial — although this well researched and exhaustively footnoted book would no doubt be a fruitful source work for that other equally notable and inclusion-worthy article. In short: pretty much a slam dunk KEEP from my perspective. Carrite (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An award winning NYT best seller of >1,000,000 copies. Meticulously documented. Why is this article even up for AfD? No part of the Holocaust should be denied. - KeptSouth (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, bestselling book on an interesting subject. I think there are NPOV problems but these are best fixed through normal editing. bobrayner (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly very notable. If there are POV problems, they can be corrected, but the existence of the article isn't a POV problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.