Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp

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 Delete. Nothing has been put forth indicating that the book itself is notable, though the subject may be. Cúchullain t/c 02:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp

Bosniaks in Jasenovac concentration camp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable book; article also has a misleading title, as the book does not appear to have been published in English. Suggest that this article be merged into Jasenovac concentration camp and deleted, unless evidence of notability is provided. —Psychonaut 17:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Note to editors: remember that this is not a vote and that your advocacy for keeping or deleting this article must be supported with reference to relevant Wikipedia policies. The closing admin should be aware that this article touches on a politically charged subject about which many editors may have strong feelings, and should therefore be careful to examine not only the !votes but the rationales. —Psychonaut 12:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge, as none of the links provided describe the importance of the book, but provide information on its subject. KJS77 19:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. All published books are notable.--Clearspeak 23:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC) — Clearspeak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep because the book has been published. ISBN: 9789958471025. The publisher: The Congress of Bosniak Intellectuals, in Sarajevo (2006). Thanks. Bosniak 00:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Can the editors above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are notable? Because there are likely one hundred million published books in the history of the world (excluding self-published books). --Charlene 01:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Can the editor above link to the policy or guideline that says that published books are not notable? Because there are likely more than one hundred million articles on the English Wikipedia, and there does not seem to be any shortage of photons in the world that would hamper the energy supply of Wikipedia.--Clearspeak 06:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment While one would need to be rather naive to think the Clearspeak user is truly a new independent voice here, the question posed can be answered by reading the criteria given by wiki policy which follows. The real question is quite simple. Does the book meet this criteria? If so, how?
Accordinig to wiki policy... quote: A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:
  1. The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.
    • The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.[4]
  2. The book has won a major literary award.
  3. The book has been made or adapted with attribution into a motion picture that was released into multiple commercial theaters, or was aired on a nationally televised network or cable station in any country.
  4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country.[5]
  5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable, even in the absence of secondary sources.[6]
The book has not been the subject of multiple published works. This book has not won a major literary award. This book has not been made into a motion picture. This book is not the subject of instruction at multiple schools. The author is not historically significant. So why continue arguing to keep the article as is, when there is an apparent consensus that the article would be accepted if it were on the topic not the book? Those who want so dearly to have this article can easily re-write it as several have suggested such that it is on the topic with the book as a reference. As it stands now, this book does not meet wiki notability standards and if accepted it opens the door for books of far less credibility. There is a standard for a reason and it cuts both ways. Fairview360 18:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Yes, but Wikipedia wisely leaves the door open to a case based on other criteria when it inserts the qualifier "generally". Is it really an absolute that the work can be considered notable if its author is historically significant even if the work itself is trivial or worthless while a work that is the sole accessible work by a respected author dealing with a historically significant event or situation is not notable? The reason why we have the expression "Rules are made to be broken" is because we are supposed to be intelligent beings with recourse to judgment and common sense.
I have no argument with the case that turning the article into one about the subject rather than about the book would be reasonable, although others appear keen to have it deleted without reservation or to have the subject lost in the general article on Jasenovac. But that suggests that the status quo is intolerable and action needs to be taken. The question is why has this article been targeted for action when its content is agreed by a reasonable proportion of respondents to be significant in its substance even if not in its form.
This article has been targeted for action when many other articles of relative triviality are completely ignored. This is one of the issues with Wikipedia. It is not subject to a systematic review process and consequently rule enforcement often carries with it the suspicion of arbitrariness or an agenda. This article could have been left in its present form to take its turn in a process of review based on the practical usefulness of the article, its relative ranking in terms of triviality - perhaps dare I say it, an article dealing with crimes and atrocities of current relevance has the right to a degree of forbearance whatever its formal failings - and the realistic likeliness of this article serving as a precedent for a general process of trivialisation. --Opbeith 21:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep What is the question here? Bosniaks were taken to the Jasenovac Concentration Camp. Maybe not as much as Serbs were, but there is proof that they were taken to jasenovac. Can someone present a real argument against these books besides simply saying "let's question them and maybe this way the 'third view' parties will delete the article". These are books with evidence in them, not 'novels' written by amateurs. Vseferović 03:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The question is not about the content of the book (i.e., whether the events described are true or notable), but whether the book itself meets the notability standards set out in Wikipedia:Notability (books). —Psychonaut 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The subject of the book is a significant one. The atrocities at Jasenovac were not only a significant element in the history of World War II, controversy over the precise details of what happened continues to feed into inter-communal conflict in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. The subject of the title is an aspect of Jasenovac that I have not seen covered elsewhere. Bosniaks were not the major victim community at Jasenovac and the treatment of what happened at Jasenovac in the main article will inevitably focus on what happened to others (particularly given the determination of some editors to summarise and reduce the length and complexity of Wikipedia articles). So I would strongly oppose a merger with the main Jasenovac article.
[Paragraph deleted. Psychonaut, you believe that my questioning of the reasons for this proposal being submitted has no bearing on the discussion and so I should delete this paragraph. I disagree with you but I believe the other arguments in favour of retaining this article are sufficient as they stand.]
Psychonaut is correct in saying that this book is not written in English. Which means that I don't have access to the information it contains. And I would find it difficult to access the article if the title were given in its untranslated version. I hope that the article will be further developed in order to provide me with more otherwise inaccessible information about its subject, its author and the context of its publication. --Opbeith 09:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • That the subject of the book is significant is irrelevant. The article in question is about the book, not about the subject of the book, and therefore the Wikipedia:Notability (books) policy applies. —Psychonaut 14:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
The subject's significance is relevant when you are suggesting that the article's content should be subsumed into the main Jasenovac article where it may be be lost and certainly will be more difficult to locate. The book is also significant in that at present it is for practical purposes the embodiment of the subject. An alternative to having this book as the subject of an article would be to keep the article but restyle it as a general article whose content is, for the time being at least, entirely drawn from the content of the book. I think we're starting to drift into the realm of discussing angels dancing on pinheads. --Opbeith 19:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without taking into consideration angels dancing on pinheads; perhaps one option could be to have a general article on Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a major source/resource for information and references? Gardenfli 03:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge into Jasenovac concentration camp; the subject of the book is a significant one, like Opbeith said. I don't see, however, that the book is a significant one. I fail to see how it satisfies WP:BK#Academic books; if anyone can demonstrate otherwise, I might change my opinion (but the burden of proof is on the one who wants to include the contents). Duja► 08:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Duja, thanks for the reference to the guidelines on the notability of academic works, which are to be treated differently to general and fictional works. I find the following advice: "Try not to apply guidelines reflexively; as if they are written in stone. All deletion discussions should be approached on a case-by-case basis, with an eye toward the peculiar circumstances presented. Keep in mind that subjects are not notable because they meet a particular standard, rather things are notable because of their impact, influence, fame, etc., and the standards are an attempt to catalogue that which notable subjects share so that we can recognize that notability." [1] I suggest that the case advanced that this book is an academic work which is a unique and respected contribution in a significant subject area enables it to satisfy the guidelines for notability. --Opbeith 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete as NN, with not a single reference to the book from any source whatsoever. The article itself is clearly about the overall subject --not even about the specific subject at the book, which I assume is this particular camp, , but about the genocide of Bosniaks back through World War II. Refs 2 & 3 are to the general subject and irrelevant. Ref 1 is to the listing of the book in an online bookstore. DGG 01:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You ignore points previously mentioned such as the fact that the original title is not in English but that this English rendering of the title and the article itself help inform us that a treatment of the subject exists. I thought librarians were supposed to be helpful, information facilitators rather than rule enforcers. --Opbeith 17:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Unless, as Gardenfli suggests, the article is revised such that it is about the topic, not the book. Otherwise, wikipedia becomes amazon.com without the option to buy. Why this book and not every other book about a worthy topic? Is wikipedia going to have an article for each and every worthy book out there? Fairview360 04:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Gardenfli has chosen to keep this article and your anti-Bosniak sentiment is nothing new. I always wonder, why do people have so much hate against certain groups. It's really sad. Bosniak 01:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) blocked yet again for this. Duja► 07:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought Bosniak was against victimhood politics as he calls it? In any case, yes, as all can see, Gardenfli has voted to keep the article and she has offered an alternative which is have a general article on Bosniaks in the Jasenovac concentration camp, using the book as a source/resource for information and references. If the article were written such (ie. were on the topic rather than the book), then, whatever sentiments I may or may not have, I would vote "keep".Fairview360 22:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It's worth noting that the book is cited with its title given in both Bosnian and English as a significant reference in an English-language review of the subject at http://www.bosnjaci.net/egt.php?id=1169&polje=. A Cincinnatti Enquirer story by Cameron McWhirter at Enquirer.com includes an interview with Nihad Halilbegovic seeking his views on the outcome of the Dayton Agreement as "the Bosnian government's secretary for invalids around Sarajevo" (a translation suggesting ministerial responsibilities - can a Bosnian speaker please investigate and confirm?), suggesting that he is a figure of sufficient substance and authority to distinguish his writings from the general run of the mill at Wikizon.com - http://www.enquirer.com/bosnia/stories/bosnia0421.html --Opbeith 11:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The first link is Web Magazine at Bosnjaci.net; actually, not entire article is devoted to the book, but to the subject of Muslim victims in Jasenovac in general. In the other, Halilbegovic has a passing mention as a government official in an unrelated story. No one here is suggesting that he's not competent on the issue or that the book is fringe, just that its relevance and notability is (quite) iffy. Duja► 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The point I was making was that the book was cited in the Bosnjaci.net article as a significant reference on the subject. Hence the book's claim to a degree of notability. --Opbeith 13:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Although this is not explicitly stated in the Enquirer article it is not unreasonable to assume that Halilbegovic was being interviewed about the impact of the settlement imposed by the 1995 Dayton Agreement - ie the division of Bosnia between the ethnic communities - because of his responsibility for the invalid victims of the crimes against humanity that had been perpetrated by the Romanija Corps of the Bosnian Serb Army in their deliberate targeting of the predominantly Bosniak civilian population of Sarajevo and the surrounding area. The history of the atrocities perpetrated against Serbs by the Ustashe at Jasenovac is often referred to by way of explaining and even justifying what might be described as the Bosnian Serbs' "proactive self-defence" between 1992 and 1995 as part of which Stanislav Galic and others committed the war crimes and other atrocities against Bosniaks that so massively inflated the invalid population of the Sarajevo area. The research contained in this book poses a significant challenge to a part of the substance of those explanations and justifications that remains particularly valid while Dragomir Milosevic's trial continues at The Hague and pending the detention and trial of radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. I'm not arguing that this interview is a determining factor in conferring notability, just another element to be taken into account. --Opbeith 15:02, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge and delete as nominator. —Psychonaut 12:59, 18 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.