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. Alex Shih ^Talk 06:13, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Honorary Aryan

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has major verifiability issues. For example, the sources alleging Hitler considered Asians honorary Aryans are considered unreliable. The talk page is replete with comments about the unacceptably poor sourcing. Smooth alligator (talk) 18:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 July 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:05, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

N. Bartulin's book Honorary Aryans notes, "Only two historiographical studies have really dealt with the question of honorary Aryans in any detail" which to me suggests a dearth of scholarly interest in the topic. This strikes me as peculiar given how thoroughly other aspects of Nazi Germany have been analyzed, and makes me wonder whether there is adequate support for this being a verifiable aspect of Nazi policy. This article seems to conflate Nazi toleration of, or cooperation or alliance with, certain people(s) with their being honorary Aryans, and if that mostly irrelevant filler were removed, there would be very little content left in this article. Of course even a myth can still be notable, but does it even meet that bar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smooth alligator (talk • contribs) 14:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is no doubt about the historical accuracy of the Japanese, for instance, being considered "Honorary Aryans". The article may need additional referencing, but that is that a reason for deletion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it must be mentioned that the account which nominated this was created three days ago, which brings up serious questions about the account's provenance and purpose. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The full title of the book mentioned above by Nevenko Bartulin is Honorary Aryans: National-Racial Identity and Protected Jews in the Independent State of Croatia, so it appears to be a specific study about a specific circumstance. The nominator, who appears to be familiar with the book, should say what Bartulin's conclusion is about the existence of the status of "Honorary Aryans" in Crotia. As for the lack of " historiographical studies", there are at least three (the two Bartulin mentioned and his own book) which can be used as sources, and we are not precluded from using non-book (but reliable) sources in our articles. Given that -- as noted below -- there are over 1000 results on Google, and keeping in mind that I certainly have seen the term mentioned in my general reading about the Nazi regime, the idea that there are not sources available seems unlikely to be true. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BMK - poor sourcing means work, not deletion, and the article is clearly notable. Keira 1996 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are at least 1,000+ results on Google Books mentioning this term. Alex Mattrick —Preceding undated comment added 07:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep -- Of course, the people to whom the Nazis gave this status were not Aryans; indeed that was the point. This was all part of their obnoxious racial policies. That policy (though completely flawed) is nevertheless notable and WP should certainly have an article on it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on grounds that at least two scholarly studies specifically exist on the topic, addressing verifiability issues.
That said, this article as currently written is quite awful. It has been compiled together in duffer's fashion from a large number of offhand derisory references to "honorary Aryan status," made by authors who never intended to imply that some kind of formal policy of "Honorary Aryan Status" existed in Nazi Germany (it did not.) I am not convinced that this article even needs to exist as a topic separate from e.g. Racial policy of Nazi Germany. TiC ^(talk) 22:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem if a re-written version of the article had the title surrounded by quotes, as in "Honorary Aryan", with a lede that said something on the order of "'Honorary Aryan' is an expression used to describe the unofficial status in Nazi Germany of some races and persons." Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the astute arguments of BMK. Antonioatrylia (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2017 (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.