Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Appeasement of Hitler: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:34, 27 June 2008

Appeasement of Hitler

Article was a content fork from Appeasement some time ago. Article has sourcing problems, the only cited source is a mass-market "history" book detailing a conspiracy between Hitler and the Tory party. Article has been subject to a long-running edit war between several IP addresses; adding and reverting original research and editorial synthesis (as well as links to Leninist propaganda websites). This subject is already covered at Munich Agreement, German occupation of Czechoslovakia, Lesson of Munich, and Western betrayal so I just don't see the need for this article. Article has had 2 years to get into shape but has consistently failed to do so. L0b0t (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The attempts to appease Hitler were a unique part of world history. I will not discuss them here, as the point of this page is to debate whether or not to keep the article. I am a history major, and I do remember learning about this subject when I was in college. This article only needs necessary improvements to meet Wikipedia standards. Hellno2 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, expand, more citations/references— The article is indeed important, but could use expansion on the reference front. I'm sure this is information on this idea out there. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your comment about the appeasement being a unique part of history is spot-on. In no way am I questioning the legitimacy of the topic. Rather, I am positing that the subject is already covered in other articles, please see [1], and that this article has been a mess of dubious sources, original research, editorial synthesis and strange propaganda[2] [3] [4] [5] for 2 years now and sees little hope for improvement. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Appeasement - This could someday be a very good article; AfD is not cleanup. I would rather redirect/merge now than leave this tagged for cleanup indefinately, though - especially if no one has taken the opportunity in two years. --Explodicle (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAve you read the Munich Agreement article? Protonk (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Explodicle (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Appeasement. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be expand more Mardetanha ^talk 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No sources that verify the text. This subject (as has been pointed out) is already covered by other articles, meaning that this article is likely to become a POV Fork more than anything else. If someone can tell me ANYTHING that can be added to this article that isn't appropriate (or already in) for the Munich Agreement article, I might change my mind. Protonk (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a source we could use in this article. If you'd like, I can provide some more to better establish notability, as even the nominator agrees to below. I agree that our current organization is fine, but that's reason to redirect, not to delete. --Explodicle (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge It would be better to merge this into an existing article, and get rid of the rubbish that's there. It could always be broken out again if there were enough solid material.JQ (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would we keep if we merged this with another article on Munich? Protonk (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The brief reference to the Saarland and Rhineland is significant background that doesn't seem to be covered in either the Munich or Appeasement articles. I think Appeasement is the obvious place for a merge JQ (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be VERY surprised if neither the appeasement not the munich article contained a discussion of the cultural motivations/differences between the annexation of the Saarland and the Sudetenland. I'm not saying you are wrong (I haven't checked the articles myself), but if I remember that part (dimly) from high school history, it can't be too obscure. Protonk (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised myself, but take a look. The Munich Agreement article has a sidebar which includes links to specific Saar and Rhineland articles under a very generic title (Interbellum changes in German borders) and Appeasement has nothing.JQ (talk) 23:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the first paragraph of the Hitler's demands part, the Alsace-Lorraine article and the Anschluss article. Very well covered. Protonk (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. These articles seem to start in 1938 with the Anschluss. The classic account of appeasement is one which begins, at the earliest, with Hitler's repudiation of the Treaty of Versailles, and suggests that the failure to hold Germany to the terms of the treaty laid the basis for everything that followed. That's not a view shared by most modern historians, but it's certainly the natural starting point for an article on the topic. In this respect, Appeasement of Hitler is better than the others, though that doesn't excuse the rubbish that follows. In any case, the appropriate response to a POV fork like this is usually Merge.JQ (talk) 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We may be talking at cross purposes. I'm referring to this section in the Appeasement of Hitler article:

Many people argued that German rearmament, the remilitarization of the Rhineland, and the acquisition of the Saarland were merely examples of the Germans taking back what was rightfully theirs.

I think I can see where we might be getting mixed up. I'm focusing on the remilitarization of the Rhineland (and related acts seen or externally justified as "returning ethnic germans to the fold"). I guess this sentence itself isn't mentioned in the other articles. the reason I mentioned the articles I linked above was because I felt the operative connection was that of blood, not timing. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important and well documented part of twentieth century history. The British and Frence sought to appease Hitler at the expense of other countries, thereby strengthening his military machine. Edison (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - most well known appeasement in world history --T-rex 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please READ the article and the reasons for nomination before voting. We know the topic is notable, that is not what this AfD is about. The topic is already covered, in much greater detail, in other articles. We are not trying to delete the topic, only this specific, poorly written, unsourced, POV dumping ground of an article. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 10:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If the topic is notable then it shouldn't be deleted. --T-rex 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- An article being of poor quality is not reason for deletion. If your main problem is that it's a content fork, then the deletion policy states that a merge or redirect is preferable. --Explodicle (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - C'mon guys (and or gals). Read the article. Then read any article that it might be merged with. Then come up with one sentence from this article that would add to any possible merger target. This article isn't supported by significant sourcing. It doesn't make a single notable claim that isn't already made in another article on the same exact topic. It represents (through the title and probable neglect) an opportunity for POV Forking (as it stands the article is a mild POV fork already). If we already have an article on Picachu and I write a poor, unsourced copy of that article and title it Characters in Pokemon that look like mice with some lightening added which adds nothing to the topic but unverified speculation and implausible claims, then what do we do with it? Merge it into picachu? This shouldn't be a referendum on the notability of the Munich Agreement, but on the notability of the specific claims made in Appeasement of Hitler distinct from what is covered in the Munich Agreement. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't merge any of this stuff either - I just think all notable topics are redirect-worthy. Following your example - there used to be a poor, unsourced article on Thunderbolt Pokémon Attack that survived a deletion attempt and was turned into a redirect. --Explodicle (talk) 17:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ok. Also, I wasn't directing venom at you, specifically, you just happened to be the last comment threaded. :) Protonk (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with L0b0t. This article needs to be deleted immediately. I don't see a reason why there should be so many articles on this topic. A bit redundant to me.218.186.68.124 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Add material summarising/wikilinking the main actions of appeasement in the 1930s to Appeasement. Needless content fork. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as this has been a direct copy from In our Time. Star Garnet (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is at best a fork--not exactly a POV fork, but rather a fork constituting an attempt to write another article, less well written, less accurate, less detailed, and less well-referenced than the ones we already have. Nothing worth merging. DGG (talk) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Too many articles on same topic! Same arguments, what is the use? Delete!Yasis (talk) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 * '''Strong delete''' as this has been a direct copy from ''In our Time''.  [[User:Star Garnet|Star Garnet]] ([[User talk:Star Garnet|talk]]) 19:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' this is at best a fork--not exactly a POV fork, but rather a fork constituting an attempt to write another article, less well written, less accurate, less detailed, and less well-referenced than the ones we already have. Nothing worth merging. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 06:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
+*'''Strong Delete''' Too many articles on same topic! Same arguments, what is the use? Delete![[User:Yasis|Yasis]] ([[User talk:Yasis|talk]]) 09:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)