Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!

{{ns:0|S}}

{{#ifeq:The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!|The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!||

:{{la|The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!}} – (View AfD)(View log)

Contested prod. This article claims that the paper is "famous", but has no references to back up the claim. The title has only [http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22The+Crucifixion+of+Jews+Must+Stop%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=80&sa=N 69 ghits], most of which are from message boards and not a single one of which is from a news organisation or academic source. While I recognise that in the case of an old paper like this, not all the sources will necessarily be online, I feel the onus is on the creator and other editors who want to keep it to provide sources indicating that it's notable, rather than just saying "it's famous".

The creator's made assorted arguments in favour of keeping it on the talk page, none of which appear to stack up: "It's the first time the word holocaust was used in this context (definitely untrue); "It gets 300,000 Ghits" (untrue - the 300k hits are on ""crucifixion, jews, stop" in any order, not on the title itself); two "sources", both of which appear to be laundry-lists of holocaust denial resources rather than discussion of this particular paper's significance (one of the references is in German, so I may be incorrect on this as my German is fairly rusty); and "It's a pretty discussed paper", again with no evidence of this discussion and as I say, the only mention I can find of it are on a few holocaust-denial sites and (bizarrely) Playstation 3 Forum.

I recognise that I'm AfDing this earlier than I usually would, but I really can't see anything that can be added to this to salvage it. Obviously, if someone can add genuine sources, consider this nomination withdrawn. — iridescenti (talk to me!) 12:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Only 67 unique Google hits for the exact title -- Google reports "about 786" on the first search page, but drilling down into the query pages shows that this is an overestimate. Most of the hits appear to be from holocaust-denial sites. Delete, unless notability can be demonstrated from verifiable, independent published sources. -- Karada 13:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Non-notable, trivial publication. Tarc 14:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - As far as I'm informed Martin H. Glynn was the first one to use the noun holocaust with reference to massmurder/starvation of jews (1919). Please have a look [http://www.h-ref.de/literatur/a/american-hebrew/glynn.php here] or [http://www.nizkor.org/features/techniques-of-denial/work-cited.html here]. And note: www.h-ref.de is of course not holocaust-denial site. Aborvegyro 14:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - If the only notable fact is use of the word holocaust, then couldn't that fact just be included on Martin H. Glynn? Feeeshboy 14:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

::::it can, of course. If you like merge the content and make the lemma a redirect. Aborvegyro

• Comment on actually following the (single) reference all the way through, the only "source" for this document ever even existing is [http://www.jrbooksonline.com/ "JR Books, A White Nationalist Literary Resource"], which I would venture to suggest isn't exactly a reliable source. Can anyone find any evidence that this paper ever even existed? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 16:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem is that this only tells in brief what the paper is and links to it - so it doesn't really provide a context. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Just because it's about Jews you hesitate or what?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.52.177.132 (talk • contribs) — 89.52.177.132 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment. We're not hesitating -- it's just that Deletion process usually takes a few days to complete. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Martin H. Glynn. The number six million is a coincidence and the word "holocaust" has existed for hundreds of years. Unless further reliable sources can be identified, this information best belongs in the article about the author. Alansohn 00:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Merge Agree with Alansohn, an interesting curiosity, best merged. I reworded up the material into standard English in preparation. This article comes from a real Jewish periodical, and there's a gif of the text to prove it. The holocaust-denial use of it could be mentioned if we had some source. DGG 01:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• Of course a merger is agreeable. Aborvegyro 06:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::::By the way: have to apologize for not having found orgiginally the [http://www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/american/american.hebrew/glynn.1919 Nizkor link], which could be regarded a reliable source. Aborvegyro

• Comment - Since Martin H. Glynn died in 1924, the text is now out of copyright - should we send the whole thing across to Wikisource? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

:Nice idea. Would you take the burden? Aborvegyro

Merge/Redirect to Martin H. Glynn as the first use of the term holocaust in the modern sense. Delete would serve no purpose. And somebody might try to recreate the article again. SilkTork 23:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Whatever it is, it's definitely not the first time the term "holocaust" has been used in the modern sense, I'm not sure where this claim is coming from. See Names of the Holocaust — iridescenti (talk to me!) 23:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

::::that's a little missleading, because it's definitely the first time the term "holocaust" has been used in regard to mass destruction of jewish people. Regards Aborvegyro

: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.