Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood and soil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, though it seems that some thought needs to be given to the article's general disposition. -Splash - tk 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood and soil

Blood and soil (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Completing improperly listed nomination that I noticed. I think the page should be deleted, myself, given that it's missing sources and seems to be almost totally OR. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep. Though not as well known as Bismark's Blood and Iron, still... I'd heard the phrase. I think it was a real enough and important enough tagline in its day. Granted that the article should be sourced, it is not original research in my opinion. Herostratus 03:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
    • "Proponents of the "blood and soil" ideology hold that an authentic nation (as opposed to a proposition nation) can only exist where the citizens believe that they are somehow biologically related." sounds like OR to me, as does "The simple phrase was effective in communicating the goals of the Nazi party, as well as promulgating racism against not only Jews but foreigners.". Also, I can't go on a simple "I think". Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 03:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, the solution to that is to look for sources. [1] gives a fair number to indicate it existed as a doctrine, though I must defer to persons with access to the full sources to recount the meaning and whether or not the current article reflects it. FrozenPurpleCube 04:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Delete (I am the original nominator so maybe I cannot vote, but someone started the discussion while I was still writing my reasons--Mikerussell 03:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be deleted under the following wikipedia policy:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms).

This article is a neologism that does not have a clear meaning. It began as an article exclusively about the Nazis on June 18, 2005, and stayed that way unchanged, without any references or much expansion for years until April 2007 when one editor tried to claim it was Platonic and widely used in academic history. I, and other editors, have found no evidence of this. Please see Talk:Blood and soil for more info. I would have argued to keep it as a Nazi article, but when I did more research, it seems clear the term is not recognized widely enough as a Nazi-exclusive term. The German term may be Nazi-exclusive: Blut und Boden (maybe an article as this about the Nazis would make some sense, or merged/redirect into R. Walther Darré?), but the English phrase has much less definitive meaning. Here are some samples of the term unrelated to Nazism:

I am going stop now but I could go on. This list did not take any more than just doing a Google search for "Blood and soil", and I did not include here any book, website or article that related to Nazism. Thus I believe this article should be deleted because it is an English language neologism and thus violates wikipedia's purpose and policy. I also think there is an undertone of racism to this article as it stood recently. One of the above cited articles is a right-wing U.S. hate group and this article is so indefinable and "loose", like all neologisms- it can be hijacked for political, unencyclopedia-like purposes. This is the emerging power of wikipedia itself, because if you do the Google search you will notice what first is listed. --Mikerussell 03:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment Hmm, if the term isn't "Nazi-exclusive" but rather, there are multiple usages of it, then my suggestion is a disambiguation page with links to any usage that can be appropriately sourced. Since a search for "Blood and Soil" combined with Nazi gets me a fair number of results, I'm going to say it was used by them, or at least, that scholars consider it to be. [2]. If it is used by others in some kind of systematic pattern, I don't know. If you, or someone else can establish it, go for the disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 04:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, an AFD is not a vote, but rather a discussion, and as the nominator, you're certainly welcome to make your position clear, especially if some mistake occurred in the nomination process obscures your argument. FrozenPurpleCube 04:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't really understand the case for deletion. This is a significant concept that has been around for a long time in different contexts and I think it deserves an article. However, the current article is not good and needs a "cleanup" tag. I don't agree that a dab page is appropriate as it would be more useful to mention the different contexts on the same page. I had no trouble finding a few hundred academic articles with this phrase starting in 1933, so I don't agree it is a neologism. I also found some academic literature connecting the concept to Plato (but this is off my area of expertise so I'm not volunteering to edit it). --Zerotalk 06:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, but remove the unsourced parts. The use of the term as Blut und Boden as a core propaganda theme by the Nazis, at least, is notable; as could be an article detailing the use of this slogan in other parts of the world. Sandstein 06:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The German phrase Blut und Boden is clearly notable and the English translation "Blood and soil" appears to be frequently enough used. Deletion would seem to be out of the question. More importantly, is it ever used today in reference to any ideology or movement without being, at the same time, an indirect reference to this aspect of the Nazi ideology? I very much doubt it. The above-mentioned titles of books and articles referring to genocide and nationalism seem to prove the opposite of what the nominator suggests. (After I first looked at the article, somebody rewrote the article, inserting the long paragraph on Plato at the beginning and shortening the Nazi part. Even if there is some basis for attributing original usage to Plato, it is misleading to make this the main section of the article and the Nazi usage a small appendix at the end.) Pharamond 06:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think this is a notable enough phrase and the bit about Darre would make it a serviceable stub. Without references linking the Plato passage and the blood and soil phrase, though, it's definitely "bleeding" into synthesis. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment:There are new edits, or reverts, that show what I am talking about a bit better. I am not going to edit the article any longer and comment here so others may get a better idea of what my concern is. Obviously misusing Plato's Republic is an error and anybody with any knowledge of the book will see that. The biggest error User:HowardJ87 is doing is saying the Republic deals with Athens. There is no truth to this at all, the large passage he quoted is from Socrates "just-city-in-speech" a FICTIONAL city. But this has next to nothing to do with the deletion issue. It is his other comments that are most telling. He is denying the phrase has anything to do with Nazis. User:HowardJ87 is suggesting the exact opposite of what the above editors have stated. In good faith, he honestly believes the article is a concept that has nothing to do with Nazism. He writes twice on the Discussion page, any Nazi reference should be edited out. He offers a source. He says the article should have no Nazi meaning, it has a long historical tradition in his assertion. In fact, the article was started to show the racism of Nazi Germany, and he has just claimed the exact opposite, that a Neo-Nazi created the article? This is why I called it a neologism, for if you read the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (neologisms) page it really does fit. I know it is a little bit different than adding an "ism" to a President's name, like Bushism, but this phrase is a pure example of using a term to mean something new, notably by this editor, but as the samples of other usage suggest in my original nomination, others use the term to mean very different things too. If you read where the manual style talks about synthesis of original and authentic research it fits too. This term is just too loose to be used, the books I offered show no clear reference to Nazis, just a loose idea about genocide. Perhaps this article should be redirected to genocide, or another appropriate topic, but then again, does that even make sense or is it too loose a term? I really think this article lacks the required percision to belong to an article. After 2 years so little is really stated in the article, it just is an empty envelope. If you could write an article like Shock and awe about Blood and soil there would be an article about it. But nobody can. I really don't have much invested in fighting over it, the Plato misquote is not the issue I am concerned about, Socrates teaches that you have to have a high tolerance to be misunderstood by "the many" to be a philosopher, so that error in quoting Plato should be fixed but it really isn't why I nominated it. As I said, take a look at Shock and awe, will this article ever come close to it?--Mikerussell 17:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why somebody can't possibly make an article about this concept as much as Shock and awe or any other doctrines. Lack of interest in it means nothing, Wikipedia won't be built in a day, a lot of otherwise important subjects have poor articles. The other editor's concerns about Plato are a content dispute that doesn't reflect the subject of this article. If you are having problems resolving that issue, try RFC. Again, I don't know about those other usages, but there's a clear association with Nazi's and this phrase. If you can show a clear and distinct meaning for those other usages, they can be incorporated into this article or a disambiguation. A redirect to genocide makes no sense, that'd obscure the meaning of this policy. FrozenPurpleCube 18:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
What categories would you use? Besides English phrases, I think the categories would contradict one another?-- also- Well, my point is it isn't a doctrine. Mikerussell 18:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're asking here. What do categories have to do with the current discussion??? If you're concerned about what categories this article could belong to, well, that's not a major problem. One on Nazis, possibly one on political doctrines, if you want a quick answer. Seriously though, that's a non-issue. This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party. It has been covered in a wide variety of scholarly works. That makes coverage of it appropriate. If you're having problems covering it appropriately, that's not a deletion issue, that's a cleanup issue. FrozenPurpleCube 19:47, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
oh, and you might want to look at [3] the German Language version] which satisfies me that somebody can write a better article on this subject. FrozenPurpleCube 19:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
We are missing each other here, so there isn't much point in discussing it further. The issue is whether it is a doctrine, or at least what type of doctrine it is, if it is a Nazi doctrine, then the edits that say it is much more are wrong. Shock and awe has no similiar dispute. You seem to be ignoring the core issue of the debate, by concluding it is a Nazi theory- "This is a policy/doctrine of a major political party." I am not going to edit the article because as I have said, I think it doesn't belong on wikipedia, and partly this is based on my belief that junky articles should not pile up. By deleting this article now, it doesn't banish the concept from coming back when someone, or something, makes it clearer. Your attitude seems to say, well the phrase has a lot of hits on Google Scholar, the German edition has an article, that's enough to keep it around- more the merrier. Your standard seems very low. I am not going to edit the article because I think there are irreconcible points made by differnt editors, and from my research it seeems to me it would be unwise to call this English language phrase a political doctrine. I actually believe User:HowardJ87 is making just as much sense as blindly categorizing it as a Nazi Theory, which as far as I know is a German party. German concepts simply translated into English do not mean the same thing in English. Suggesting the German history and culture can just be translated and applied to an English phrase is a bit simplistic. It doesn't bother me the way User:HowardJ87 has employed Plato now, I mean he offers some quotes and obviously has a good faith belief that this blood and soil concept is an ancient doctrine. I just think the article is really beneath the acceptable standard of wikipedia, even an online user-edited encyclopedia, and since there is a deletion process, it seems there is a need to edit material that is muddled, clouded, contradictory and not useful. If others want to comment they will, but you and I seem to be missing each other.--Mikerussell 23:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, in this case, the subject of the article is not itself a problem, and if the content is, well, this is one of those cases where it's a case of cleaning up. If you're not disputing that this is a major policy/doctrine of the Nazi party, then indeed, I see no reason to delete it. I see no reason to object to this translation of "Blut und Boden" as it is quite literal, and it is the translation used by others. If you want to propose a move to another location, you're certainly welcome to do so, I don't know that the foreign-language title will be preferred, but at tje least, if there's another usage you can document, you can add (Nazi Doctrine) to the English translation.
Frankly, I don't understand why you're going for deletion so hard. Perhaps you might want to look at the AFD for Health care in Pakistan which was another recent case where somebody suggested deletion, but where the consensus was even more clearly for a cleanup. Again, the solution to bad content is to edit the page. This isn't a well-done article, I won't dispute that. Neither is the Pakistani Health care one. But there's no question to me that they're both a valid subject for some kind of article. So the best option is to leave it for clean-up and improvement. The content's not so bad now that it can't be used. If you don't want to do it, you don't have to do so, but deletion isn't necessary here. I would suggest an option like WP:RFC instead. Especially since it's quite possible the problem is in the editor, not the subject. FrozenPurpleCube 00:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, i've added the rewrite tag to the page because I do agree this page needs some reworking. FrozenPurpleCube 00:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment: I never said I thought it was a Nazi party doctrine, when I hear the term "blood and soil", I infer meaning from the context. I don’t doubt the Nazis used "Blut und Boden" to justify their crimes against humanity, but is it any different than "Lebensraum"? Would you start an article called "Living Space" on Wikipedia just because the Nazi Party used the German word "Lebensraum" to enslave Eastern Europe? I don’t think I am going "so hard" for deletion. How can you support inclusion of an article that is making concepts through Wikipedia, as opposed to documenting actual events, people and concepts? An encyclopedia’s function does not include creatively coining new terms. Can you find another Encyclopedia entry on "Blood and Soil"? Try Encyclopedia Britannica at [4] and enter "Blood and Soil" in the search box, then try "Blood & Soil" and "Blut und Boden". Best I could do was a mention in the "Fascism" article [5] that deals with 1994 Russian politician Barkashov, who said: "Farmers, he said, were the best part of the nation, representing as they did a union of blood and soil." Try MSN Encarta at [6] and enter the same. There is no need for such a weak article in Wikipedia, I mean one paragraph of this article is about something good, I think? This stuff about ancient civilizations is news to me, but what I can infer from it is User:HowardJ87 thinks it is a "good" thing- I infer he thinks it supports patriotism and is a natural out growth of human civilizations, he cites a source- Thomas Fleming, and then includes stuff about "proponents" and "authentic nations". He totally misinterprets Plato’s Republic to justify this notion, but a lot of people in good faith can misread Plato. Then the Nazi section refers to basically- the holocaust- or at least justification for it. These things strike me as an embarrassment to Wikipedia, not a normal dispute, or poorly written article. There is no doubt about Health care in Pakistan- it exists no matter what. "Blood and soil" is not in the same category.--Mikerussell 03:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, as I said, I don't know that the foreign language title will be appropriate in this case, I don't see that it's a problem to use the translation as it's in regular use in English, (and I think that Living space should have a note about Lebensraum as well), but if you do, the place you want to go is Requested moves. Not AFD. And complain all you want about the weakness of this article, that's missing the point of what I've been saying, the solution is to improve the article, not delete it. There is no denying that whether you call it Blut und boden or Blood and soil, the doctrine itself was a part of Nazi ideology. If it wasn't, that'd be a reason to delete, but it's not. You don't even seem to be claiming it wasn't. Are you, or are you just concerned about the quality of the article? If so, once again, I reiterate, clean-up is the solution. Or moving if you object to the title. But the fact is, deletion is not used just because an article on an otherwise acceptable subject is poor. (Well, except for Copyvio and BLP situations, neither of which is applicable here). Oh, and I'd like to point out that going to Brittanica or Encarta is needless, I've already posted a link to google scholar. Here it is again: [7]. Those are secondary sources, which is what anybody should be using to write an article, not tertiary sources like another encyclopedia. FrozenPurpleCube 05:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, just so you know, I don't support this article. I think it needs to be rewritten and otherwise improved. This is distinct from being deleted. Deletion is for other problems. This is a cleanup problem. FrozenPurpleCube 05:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reply to Comment: I do not believe there is enough evidence to include "Blood and soil" as a Nazi ideology article. "Blood and soil" is not an exclusive Nazi phrase. I am amazed that you think "Living Space" should have a dab reference to Adolph Hitler’s propaganda. Moreover, your Google Scholar search is very misleading. The proper search is just "Blood and soil" to determine whether the English language phrase has enough of an exclusive meaning in English to attribute it exclusively to Nazi ideology. Of course you will get a bunch of hits when add in "Nazi"? What does that prove? Search "Blood and soil". You get results about Southeast Asia and other varied topics; it is not an exclusively Nazi term. Plus, do you know how much scholarship is just bullsh*t. Academics have to publish to survive, often they don’t even get paid for the publishing, to keep their jobs or get tenure they need to publish something, often journals are created by other academics solely to elevate their own department's or school's reputations. There is a huge mass of research in many areas that mean very little to the general public, let alone the student of the discipline. GS is just a bibliographic index of all published material, much of it may be from old or out-of-print sources, it is just an aggregate search. I used to teach a credit course at the University of Toronto that taught students to discern topic-specific, properly sourced research. I remember finding a stat that as much as 35% of scholarship that is published in academic journals is not peer reviewed. Moreover, much research that is peer reviewed is admittedly the exclusive interest of subject specialists. This logic about GS is really off the mark, it does not follow that because you get a lot of hits you need a Wikipedia article. You have missed my point about Britannica and Encarta. What I am saying is that Wikipedia can be abused by people who want to create articles that do not warrant inclusion. This tendency is obvious when articles are created about academics, musicians, or other people with marginal public interest. But ideas can also gain an undeserved prominence through a Wikipedia article. I mention that Britannica or Encarta doesn’t have a "Blood and soil" entry, or even subentry, as evidence of its lack of use in contemporary society. Of course an online user-edited encyclopedia has many fold-more articles, but the point you have consistently stepped over is the abuse of Wikipedia to advance a private opinion. Your logic seems to be- GS has many hits with ("Blood and soil" Nazi), therefore without reading the actual articles, you are going to improve the article. We just completely disagree, so hopefully others will have the energy and interest to battle through this longwinded squabble (my fault as much as yours) and offer their opinion and vote because we are just going in circles.--Mikerussell 16:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm completely baffled at your insistence that there's not enough evidence to support the idea that "Blood and Soil" was indeed a Nazi ideology. If you are indeed claiming such, how do you refute the numerous scholarly articles that refer to it as such?
You can go on if you want about the quality of the individual articles, but the fact is, they do exist, and if they're older, you know what that means? It means there is a pattern of usage across several decades. That's actually a good thing. If some of them aren't good sources, well, that's not going to mean much for the aggregate, as with several hundred choices, it's possible to find some good sources in them. I see no reason to insist on exclusiveness here, if anything, that only means you create a disambiguation page. And note, this doesn't include simple usages like cases where chemical testing is going on (IOW, instead of anything meaningful by use of the phrase, it just means they tasted blood and soil samples,). If you can find somebody using that as their motto/doctrine, go for disambiguation.
And please remember, this is NOT a vote. It's a discussion. Numbers don't matter, the reasonableness of the argument here does. So far, you really haven't been convincing to me. I doubt you'll be convincing to the closing admin. I've tried to explain why, but it basically boils down to this "If Blood and Soil is in fact, a reasonable translation of a Nazi ideology, then deletion isn't the solution here". Since even the quickest of google searches gets results that support the idea, I'd therefore say consider options besides deletion. If you think "Blut and Boden" is a better title, propose the move. If you think there's some other usage? Create a disambiguation once you can establish that usage. If you think the article is in a poor state? Propose it for cleanup. Only if you are absolutely disputing that this phrase is associated with the Nazi ideology would deletion be the proper option. However, if you did so, it'd clearly be mistaken on your part. So I suggest you consider other options. Deletion isn't always the solution. FrozenPurpleCube 17:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Reply: It is not prevelant enough to have its own article. It can certainly be included in other articles, like R. Walther Darré. You are assuming just b/c it is mention in articles, it deserves its own article, at the exclusion of the other reasonable references, scholarly or not, that "Blood and soil" carry, which is also evident in the articles unrelated specifically to Nazi ideology.--Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We are going in circles, the issue is this article possible to improve, if not, it suggests the term is faulty, and the article should be deleted as providing faulty or false information to the general public. This vote, or whatever, is irrelevant, the future of the article is all that matters, and in 1 year I bet it will be just as muddled and useless as it is now because it is not a viabale article, but you really never sqaured up the issue about undue prominence, which seems beyond your concern. --Mikerussell 18:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
I see plenty of prevalence. Nothing you've said has refuted the idea that it's the name of a policy of a national party. Such things warrant coverage. If you think it should be covered elsewhere? Try a merge tag, or a move. If this article isn't correct now? Revert to a version you're satisfied with. If there is no such version, blank the page, find an acceptable source, rewrite it from the start. Don't just get so locked into the idea that there's only one option, or that having a poor article means anything. Wikipedia offers a wide variety of choices of actions besides deletion, and the fact is, it's a work in progress. This is like today's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sudan at the 1968 Summer Olympics. Note how few people there are supporting deletion. Why? Because improvement is preferred over removal. Maybe they're wrong, but so far, the arguments against leaving the pages for improvement are limited. Same here. FrozenPurpleCube 20:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
You stated your opinion many times, it is only your voice. I will reserve further comment until others comment, which I hope occurs. So far, you are the only voice in this discussion that has responded to my earlier points (or hasn't to be more accurate). Its five days right? I'll check-in, but your points have missed the issue as I see it and your suggestions are quite condescending. Don't be so certain. --Mikerussell 00:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry you find my responses condescending, would you care to explain how? I've tried to explain my position to you, but if it's come across as offensive, I'd like to do what I can to not offend you. FrozenPurpleCube 21:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't take it personal, but you should do what you think is best, don't tell me what should be done, go ahead change it as you see fit. I still don't think it is a workable concept-article, if you do- go on with your suggestions. If you cannot improve it, that says something about my point, not yours. I am busy today and the next couple, so I have not checked the article and out of curiousity just looked to see if others have commented, which seems like there hasn't been much input. Have to go, but will check-in probably Wedneday-Thursday.--Mikerussell 23:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
So, you're merely upset that I suggested alternate means of accomplishing your desired ends? I'm afraid I don't consider that condescending, I consider that an attempt to be helpful on my part so that in the future you might avail yourself of other options which you are apparently unaware of. Given your initial response to the discussion, I don't think it's inaccurate for me to say you seem unfamiliar with the AFD process, most especially the availability of other options. It's actually quite common for folks to stumble into deletion without realizing that maybe there's another alternative. However, I've found you oddly hostile to the mere idea of cleaning up. You've consistently failed to address why a policy of a major political party doesn't merit an article. So why would I even try to improve it? If you'd said "Hey, let's do that" I probably would have done something. But I find your attitude to be somewhat discouraging. So I've tried to address it instead. FrozenPurpleCube 01:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Upset? You interpret this as an emotional response do you? Isn't that violating some common decency rule for fellow editors. My arguments are valid, you may not recognize that, or understand them, but to reduce them to my personal "hostility" is really disrespectful, not only completely wrongheaded. Your response sounds like you have taken this issue as a personal dispute which cheapens wikipedia and this article even more. I guess there isn't much point of discussing it any further with you.--Mikerussell 13:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I consider the response "your suggestions are quite condescending" to reflect that you were upset by my remarks. It's kind of hard to imagine why else you would remark on them. If you think I'm saying something about your emotional state, I'm not. I'm merely interpreting your position as one where you are not satisfied with what I've been saying. And I don't consider you hostile to me, I consider you to be hostile to the idea of cleanup instead of deletion. I consider this odd on your part, the same as I consider your reaction to my saying so odd. I don't think I'm misinterpreting you here. If you're taking that as personal, I don't know why, but maybe you should consider you yourself have said I've been condescending to you. Well, I consider your position one of hostility towards cleanup. Is either statement offensive or personal? No, I wouldn't say so. Sometimes expressing how the other is coming across is helpful to understanding a discussion. You consider me condescending. I consider you hostile to the idea of clean-up. Perhaps you might wish to examine why. FrozenPurpleCube 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I wouldn't have chosen to bring any of this up, but you did open the door. If you don't want me to comment on you, then please don't comment on me. FrozenPurpleCube 18:45, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable and well known in the context of Darré and Nazi Germany. I've added 4 references to the page - plenty more available through Google. Both the English and the German phrase seem to be used interchangeably in the English speaking web. The name of the article is fine given that Blut und Boden is already here as a redirect. There are about 14 links incoming to the article, so it will leave a decent sized hole in wikipedia if deleted. Paxse 22:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment: The 4 links actually are not references, but a Google search that is just reproduced. One link is from a Florida high school teacher, the other is an admitted "undergraduate essay" on ecology from a UK media website, one I cannot quite make sense out of "Blut und Boden" is discussing Jewish Zionism on a Marxist website. To quote it:

In life it is obvious that Zionist Blut und Boden provided an excellent rationale for not fighting anti-Semitism on its home ground.

This indicates that the concept is applied to Jewish Zionists, not the Nazi theory. It suggests that Blut and Boden simply means the words used are free from the meaning this article is acribing to them, at least the Nazi theory that the above editor has claimed- "Notable and well known in the context of Darré and Nazi Germany". In fact, it seems that the words are so fluid, they can be applied to any ethnic group, not linked especially or exclusively to Darre, although he did write a book with the title, a title that tried to perhaps capitalize on the general undefinable nature of the words in Europe.
Its misleading to call the 4 new additions references. How do they even relate to the current material? My argument remains that this term is so loose, so generally used, the article is without a coherent narrative core and it will remain unworkable, as it is now. If the concept could be improved upon I would support rewriting it and incorporate some references, but a Google search seems very unpersausive. The Harpers story I cannot even read, can anybody else? What is the point of linking to an article that is not accessible, how can someone rationally calculate its application. The standrads of inclusion are obviously very low on Wikipedia, as expressed by the above editors. I am the last guy who would think of bring up the name of Jimbo Whales on wikipedia but I recall hearing him recently being interviewed on NPR's "Fresh Air", I think, and he said how the website should work towards quality articles, not quantity. I can't help but be reminded of this idea now. I have no idea how he would look at this debate, and I don't really care, but it does show that the articles qualities are almost never discussed in reply to deletion, only Google counts and related searches and a general belief that you should "park" an article, fill it with contradictory nonsense even, in the vain hope it will be made better later. Deletion does not mean censorship, it means deleting an article that is not coherent or useful. I suspect a year from now this article will remain as contradictory and useless as it is now, even when the attention of this tagging is drawn to it, it doesn't seem to help its quality improve. --Mikerussell 00:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the Harpers article by Yehuda Nuriel offers a list of related subjects: Hitler, Adolf, Air pilots, Military, Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel, 1993-, Parodies, imitations, etc. How can someone claim that this relates to Nazi use of the phrase and Darre, it could be an article about Parodies, imitations, etc or any number of things. This Google searching is loaded when you are applying an English language phrase, and one that really can be used in "common sense" terms to apply to any number of things. In the 7 books I cited at the top of this article, one is a novel, for example. The weight given to these Google counts, Scholar or just regular Google, are rather pointless in this case, at least compared to a Google search for a person, business, rock band, movie or book; in those cases it may have much value in determining noterity in the wider culture. Darre wrote a book called Blut und Boden and thus he would have to a connection to the term in searching; it doesn't necessarily mean he is any more the main expositor of the "ideology" anymore than Allan Bloom is associated with Love and Friendship.. A Google search of that term is here. --Mikerussell 03:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Again, perhaps this is a fait accompli, but just for the record, I just got more curious about these "4 References" added by Paxse, and went back to try to figure out this "Zionist" "Blut und Boden" article, it seems to be written by an American left-wing advocate with a wikipedia article, Lenni Brenner. I mention this b/c he is far from a Nazi, he would never be classified as a person that thought Nazism was "good", or would use the terms Blut und Boden in connection to racism and the justification for the holocaust, which is really the most consistent theme presented here for non-deletion. If you read the article, he uses the term Blut often unconnected to the other words und Boden; the actual phrase used together is presented only once, as in the quote above. If one reads the Keep posts, they all seem to express a certainty that the term is a undoubtably, Nazi ideology, used directly or indirectly as a reference to Nazi policy/history. This is not true, and even a editor who suggests this is presenting "references" that discredit their point.
Regarding the comment that deletion would "leave a decent sized hole in wikipedia if deleted" doesn't make much sense. Again the articles where this article links to would be improved by deletion. For instance, a Wikipedia reader currently reading an article about Nazism or Action Française are going to be "informed" the term is related to Plato, ancient civilizations, Serbian tradition and other European cultures. If they read Lenni Brenner's artcle, they are going to read how he is arguing the term can be applied to Jewish/Isreali history and the Zionist movement. Does this really improve Wikipedia? The articles that use it as a Nazi term will be improved by deleting this muddled article, it will require more explanation of the term in primary articles. The hyperlinking can be a crutch that editors use to link to a page. There is already a big hole in wikipedia, again, this article is not coherent, is the person who links to it getting any real additional insight, or this article actually harming the article it links to by indirectly confusing the reader?
Finally, just to clarify my earlier statement about another article of the 4 being written by a Florida High School Teacher,The Doctrine of Blut und Boden Gerald McSwiggan, I deduced this from the URL, if you trace it back to its root URL, it is from Coral Gables High School; I found no reference to its author on Google Scholar; on Google, the name related to driving records and alumni postings, no reference to academic positions or other writings. --Mikerussell 17:29, 26 May 2007 (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.