Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IBM and World War II

IBM and World War II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

IBM's collaboration with Nazi Germany is already covered in the article about the book, so that part is duplicated here. The United States part is not notable enough for a separate article. I think this article is best deleted, or the US part is extended and this article is moved to something like IBM assistance to the United States government during World War II. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:13, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Shellwood (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Germany, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really understand the problem. The topic of this page is undoubtedly notable. There is another page titled IBM and the Holocaust which is specifically about a book published under that title. Whether that latter page is notable or not is moot given it doesn't appear to be nominated for deletion. To me this nomination is doomed to failure given that the scope of the other page is clearly a book (and the book is clearly about a specific part of IBM history) and whilst it overlaps with the topic of this nom-ed page, by definition doesn't encompass it. Renaming pages or moving to redlinks is not normally something we discuss at AfD. JMWt (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My primary suggestion is to delete the page. AfDs can result in a consensus to merge or redirect so I don't really see the problem. The topic might be notable but the article feels like WP:SYNTH, the sources talk about specific parts of the article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Well we don't redirect to redlinks, so there's your answer. I don't have anything to add on your other points. JMWt (talk) 11:03, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to summarize, we now have the following articles that summarize info about IBMs involvement during WWII:
- IBM and the Holocaust
- Business collaboration with Nazi Germany
- This article
- History of IBM

I would say that's a bit much. As an alternative proposal to deletion, I would suggest dramatically shortening the book article and moving that info here. The book is considered a reliable source, but using it in the book article is undue weight due to it being a primary source. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IBM and the Holocaust is an article on a specific book (full title:IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation) by Edwin Black and not an overall topic; Business collaboration with Nazi Germany is about overall business collaboration with Nazi Germany (so not specific to IBM); History of IBM is an overall company history and not specific to their WWII history. I do think that this article should be built out, but I think IBM's WWII history-which ranges from the US Army's use of punch cards (a good example is highlighted in The Fog of War and described in depth by Robert McNamara and not to mention it assigned Major Major Major the rank of Major in Catch-22) to their involvement in the Holocaust and how IBM was able to profit off both sides of the war technically through Dehomag-does deserve a standalone article. That there are parts of IBM's WWII history in other articles is not a valid reason to delete an article specific to the topic. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the book article is about the book, but the summary section in that article basically duplicates the current article. With the exception of the US-side, which is why I originally suggested to move that to a different article. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I recommend expanding the current article. I fail to see how a summary in an article of a book about a subject merits a deletion of an article on the actual subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Because of how extensive the summary is in the book article. Random example: Berlin: The Downfall 1945. It is described in a single sentence, and link to the articles in case that describe it in-depth. I think that is fine. My point for opening this AfD was because I don't think it's a good idea to duplicate the information across multiple articles. I'm not necessarily proposing removing it from the book article, though. PhotographyEdits (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a good reason to delete. If anything, then the summary of IBM and the Holocaust should be pared down so it isn't as detailed. I would also support moving IBM and the Holocaust to IBM and the Holocaust (book) so that it doesn't give off the impression that is an article of the subject. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]