Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:02, 5 September 2011

German collective guilt

• Articles for deletion/German collective guilt
• Articles for deletion/German collective guilt (2nd nomination)

German collective guilt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This is a dab-page-shaped article (and its creator calls it a dab page - see Talk) but it is not a dab page - none of the articles have titles which are ambiguous with "German collective guilt". If anything needs to exist at this title, it is not a dab page. PamD 22:44, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination - the article now has real content, thanks to User:Colonel Warden, so there is now no basis for the nomination. The AfD process has been successful in converting a non-article (formatted as a dab page) into an asset to the encyclopedia, by prompting someone to take an interest and re-create the article. Thanks! PamD 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep and fix it. An earlier article was deleted several years ago as OR--I do not think it was in fact OR, but rather an extremely non-neutral presentation that would need complete rewriting. I could email it t if anyone wants to follow up on it, as was suggested at the AfD--see the earlier AfD for some advice on what would be needed. I see that User:Molobo was blocked as a compromised account in 2008, after previous blocks--there is a long history, part of it at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Eastern European disputes/Evidence. Considering the history, I'd rather not restore it even to user space unless someone is willing to promptly use it. DGG ( talk ) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete what's there to fix? The term gets virtually no hits, and I find no evidence that "collective guilt", whatever the hell that is, is mentioned anywhere in association with Germans. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:54, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Perhaps your computer has parental controls or some other filter set? I see hundreds of references to the topic. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - notable topic known by various names, I would support a move to Collective war guilt though to make the topic more encompassing (and thus more likely for a balanced Article). If you dont know what it is, count yourself lucky. Exit2DOS 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete If it's a notable topic, it should be covered by an encompassing article, not a dab page. I'm not arguing against the existence of a collective guilt associated with wars and particularly WWII, but currently, it's exactly the kind of compilation of related subjects a dab page is not supposed to be. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 18:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Highly notable topic. Any defects of the current version should be addressed by ordinary editing, not deletion. Warden (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment: the current version is labelled as a dab page: remove all the non-ambiguous entries and it becomes empty and speediable. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as a stub and the links labelled as a "See also" section ... but then it comes under CSD A3 as having no content other than those "See also"s. Such "defects" are pretty fundamental. Deletion of the article at present would not prevent someone from re-creating it as and when they had any actual content to include. PamD 21:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have expanded the article so that it has more content. Deletion was not required for this nor were the defects fundamental: it was just a matter of taking the skeleton and putting flesh upon the bones. Warden (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - highly notable topic. See these sources: , , both of which cover this particular topic in great detail. There is no reason to delete the article now that it has some content, although it needs significant expansion. S Larctia (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I have a request from Col W. for the earlier history to be restored to his user space, but I do not know how to technically accomplish it while preserving attribution. I've never figured out the more complex merge/unmerge procedures. I have therefore restored the entire history; at the end of the discussion, whatever is decided can be done, and whoever knows how to fix it properly can do so. DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - the topic itself is notable and has been the subject of several scholarly and popular works. However, the current version is highly POV and frankly embarrassing to the encyclopedia. It pushes the whole "Germans were the real victims of WW2" (because they had to "suffer" de-Nazification, because Germany lost territory as result of the war, etc), which is straight out of far-right literature (in countries, such as modern Germany and most other European countries, where outright Holocaust-denial is illegal, this theme that "Germans were the real victims of WW2" is the way that neo-Nazi parties get around this law). The *real* article should be about to what extent the German public of the 1930's acquiesced or supported Hitler and the Nazis and the implementation of the Final Solution - that is what the sources are actually about, not this extremist right wing propaganda bullshit that currently makes it up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:02, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Not yet sorted)
• AfD debates