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 delete. I am willing to WP:Userfy on request. SilkTork *^YES! 18:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gruesome Harvest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Wholly lacking in reliable sources, so fails the need for multiple, independent, nontrivial sources demonstrating enough notability for a separate article. Discussion on Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Gruesome_Harvest has failed to turn up anything that meets our criteria for inclusion. DreamGuy (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bob A (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you look at WP:NB you'll find this:

  "a. Nevertheless, the notability of books written or published much earlier may occasionally be disputed and the criteria proposed above intended primarily for modern books may not be as suitable. We suggest instead a more common sense approach which considers whether the book has been widely cited or written about, whether it has been recently reprinted, the fame that the book enjoyed in the past and its place in the history of literature."

  So I did two things, I looked to see what libraries hold the book and if it is still in print. I checked WorldCat and it is held by dozens of libraries in my region alone, including major university and research libraries. On Amazon it ranks 5,500 or so in book sales which is pretty darn high meaning it is not only in reprint but also currently popular 60 years after first publication. Certainly common sense would indicate the book is notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But by the very criteria you've quoted above, it fails the "widely cited or written about" clause and most of the others as well. A mere reprint existing in itself means nothing. DreamGuy (talk) 23:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In its present form, this article tells us nothing about how or why this book is more important than, say, Russel's Scourge Of The Swastika. If there was a proper, scholarly examination or critique then I would support that but a list (and link) of the contents plus a sentence or two is useless. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unsourced and gives no indication of notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced, completely non-notable book. The article is simply a coatrack for propagating neo-Nazi ideology. Paul B (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No indication that this book is notable. --Folantin (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• note -- it has sales rank 5,377 at amazon.com. That's not too bad for an unnotable book. The only place where we appear to cite it on-wiki is Expulsion of Germans after World War II. As a 1947 publication, it may be of historical interest, and we need to take care to avoid "google bias" against moderately notable publications predating the age of the internet. google books reveals a 1987 reprint by the Institute for Historical Review, and it seems to enjoy some currency in contemporary far-right historical revisionists such as de:Claus Nordbruch. I do not think the book passes WP:BK, but I would prefer reworking the article into a discussion of this particular brand of historical revisionism over deletion. --dab (𒁳) 13:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)##[reply]
  • this seems to be a recent publication with a similar gist. After some further googling, I would advocate a merger into Morgenthau Plan. --dab (𒁳) 13:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the book appears to be selling pretty well and referenced at other places but it probably isn't ready/important enough for its own article just yet. - Schrandit (talk) 13:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It hasn't been discussed much, but it is part of the basis of another more recent book which has got coverage, After the Reich: From the Liberation of Vienna to the Berlin Airlift by Giles MacDonogh:[1]. Yet there is too little evidence that it is notable on its own, and to where would it be merged? It could be potentially used as a source for reaction to the Allied occupation of Post-War Germany. Fences and windows (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteThe fact that a book is for sale at Amazon does not satisfy WP:N and WP:NB. Seems to be lacking reviews or other evidence it had much of an impact. The book itself is oddly strident postwar German propaganda, asserting that the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Eastern European countries was as bad as anything the Nazis are accused of doing. Edison (talk) 22:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; fails to meet the WP:N/WP:NB criteria. -- The Anome (talk) 09:14, 16 May 2009 (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.