Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitler Myth

:{{la|Hitler Myth}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hitler_Myth Stats])

:({{Find sources|Hitler Myth}})

neologism invented by Ian Kershaw, author of the primary source used in this article, and the source for basically every google hit on the phrase "Hitler Myth". Its a fine theory, (one I probably agree with) but has no notability or traction outside the one guy's works. WP:NOT Gaijin42 (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Question: Would there be merit in creating a subsection in Kershaw's article and redirecting there? I am finding some reviews for some of the works he's written about the subject. I also found [http://books.google.com/books?id=cLXrZwEACAAJ&dq=%22Hitler+Myth%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Iw1_UvzXEtKy4AP0_4C4Bw&ved=0CFkQ6AEwCQ this], which is likely a thesis. I can't exactly find whether or not it's a Doctoral thesis (which we could use as a RS) or a Master's thesis (which we can't unless it was published in peer-reviewed journal type place). I'm leaning more towards creating a brief section in Kershaw's article, which would be doable once we remove the huge quotes and summarize a little more. If we find more reviews for Hitler myth (the book) then we could create an article for the book itself and have a subsection for the idea of the myth as a whole since I do agree that this seems to be a term very closely associated with Kershaw. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

:*I'm finding quite a few reviews for his book. I'd prefer keeping an article for the concept, but if all else fails we can write an article for the book and create a subsection about this there. The presence of the term in a 1942 book suggests that Kershaw didn't really invent the term, although he certainly popularized it. His works are pretty frequently cited in various works about WWII and Hitler, although I am having a little trouble finding works that predominantly focus on the concept itself. That's sort of the difficulty level of this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Though as noted above, I'd be perfectly fine with starting a new article about the book itself, which discussed the concept. The concept itself doesn't appear to have significant coverage in reliable sources (at least in terms of meaning what this article says it does) outside of reviews of the book, which indicate that it's the book, not the concept, which has sufficient notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - The encyclopedic topic would be leader cult, which dates back as far as recorded history goes... I've got no problem with an article on the Kershaw book, which I presume has received more than three significant reviews — but the purported neologism here is unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

:: I see now that's a blue link. Cult of personality is a term given currency by Khrushchev to describe the reign of Stalin; there were leader cults dating back to ancient Rome and Egypt, it's a bigger topic than 20th Century Communism... Carrite (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

::: I could actually be talked into a renaming of this piece as Hitler leader cult. That should be sourceable. "Hitler Myth" is a throwaway term used in a book... Carrite (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Merge and Redirect to The "Hitler Myth", book (effective Rename, indeed Keep). Same conclusion as User:Tokyogirl79. Notable book, concept can be explored in the book article. The original article creator probably didn't know the nuances of the notability rules for a concept vs book article. I just did a quick refactor with a lead section and reception section. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
• Redirect to The Hitler Myth as per above, there is enough sourced material for an article about the book.--Britannicus (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Keep and move to The "Hitler Myth". The article is now about the book, which is notable. The full title is The "Hitler Myth": Image and Reality in the Third Reich, so the article title should probably include the quotation marks to be precise and avoid any POV. It should not include the subtitle (per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)). --Boson (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

::Right, I changed it above to reflect The "Hitler Myth". -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Rename -- with the reviews that the book received, it is certainly notable. However, the subject, implied by the article title would not be worth an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
• Merge and Redirect to The "Hitler Myth" a article about the book, which seems notable; the theory not so much. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
• Rename: The article is pretty much just about the book, so a rename makes sense. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2013 (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.