Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe

Add links
Source: 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.

Allied occupation of_Europe

The result was No consensus. Vassyana 10:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:
Allied occupation of_Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a

WP:POINT
attempt to artificially lump together Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe 1939-1991 and Allied occupation of Germany 1945-1955, apparently in attempt to reduce the significance of the former. It had an associated category; I went through the category and found all its entries better described by one (and in few cases both) of these more precise categories.

In its current form, the article is non-salvageable

WP:OR and ought to be deleted. Digwuren 09:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

Votes
Bad faith nomination for two reasons:
  1. User has also removed 80+ articles from the related category Category:Allied occupation of Europe. The nominator has a history of removing tens of backlinks to articles, and then taking them to AfD, claiming thet they should be deleted, as no article links to them. The nominator should have waited for the outcome of this process, before taking such desruptive action.
  2. The nomination is part of a personal vendetta by the nominator, whose contributions to Wikipedia so far are limited to
    WWII and the Holocaust
    .
Also, it seems to be generally agreed that the nominator is headed for
WP:BAN well, I do not really like the prejudge what the com might or might not do. -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. (Some of the former content of
WP:POV. Both of these cats are now uncategorized.) -- Petri Krohn 10:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
P.P.S. The article and the related category is under attack and revert warring by the nominator. Before placing judgement, please see the hitories of the article, the related category and the article space edits by the nominator. -- Petri Krohn 14:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems the only person conducting a vendetta is Petri Krohn against ethnic Estonian editors generally, check out this page here:
    Martintg 12:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Yes, that's definitely an idea. Let's create category: Estonian_Nuclear_Warfare_Against_USA, and article for it. Although the topic is total fantazy of a sick horse, the category justifies the article and vice versa. Suva 11:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - legitimate article although scrappily written at present. PatGallacher 11:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an overview of the occupation forces in post ww2 europe is neededAnonimu 12:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about austria, italy, iceland, denmark... all go in "allied occupation of Germany"?Anonimu 13:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Occupation of
Anschluß and a long-time cultural relative, belongs to Category:Allied occupation of Germany. Brief presence of Allied forces in the immediate aftermath of World War II belong in the WWII-related articles, such as ... let me think ... perhaps aftermath of World War II. Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to mention Greenland, the Faroe Islands and all the forces stationed in Western Europe in support of the "offical" occupation forces in Berlin until 1991. In fact there were quite many of these in category:Allied occupation of_Europe before the cat was nuked by the nom. -- Petri Krohn 14:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no Allied occupation of Germany since 1955 when
Soviet occupation
of parts of Germany; no Four Powers' activity was in it whatsoever.
Your inclusion of Greenland and Faroe Islands are just red herring. But what else is new? Digwuren 14:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a red herring: You removed the category from
British occupation of the Faroe Islands in World War II. I do not remember if we also had an article on the occupation of Greenland. I cannot find it, as you obviously have removed the category, if there ever was one. -- Petri Krohn 08:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Now as I have little time I explain my point little more in detail. Biggest problem with article is that it puts together occupations during World War II and occupation after World War II. Concept of
WP:NPOV. Also could anyone explain to me how Allies could occupy Benelux, Greece or Palestine(British colony) then those were also members of Allies?--Staberinde 10:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
P.S. This article is really a POV fork as per reasons of
Martintg 21:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
moral is against NPOVAnonimu 21:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Come again? Biruitorul 04:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems to be a valid main article for many other post WW2 articles Alex Bakharev 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep On the WWII page, everybody always complains we have too much info in that article, and need to merge it into other articles. Many articles that are recently made are POV, it takes time to work them out.--LtWinters 00:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article really just duplicates existing country level occupation articles, at best it is merely a category, it adds no extra information that should be available in the individual country articles. It really is a content fork.
    Martintg 00:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's a good summarization of all those countries' after the war, instead of chunks of information taking an hour to read on each one. Some of the countries listed don't even have those articles on them. And you are saying this is a category, we there are many individual articles, well I mean you could say the same of the WWII article and that we don't need it because there are subcategory articles for each topic mentioned in the WWII article. --LtWinters 13:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, improve and expand. First point in favour of keeping: since one guy's POV is another guy's NPOV, POV is not really a good reason to delete articles - only if they cannot be improved or expanded to get rid of it, deletion or merger is a possible way out. Looking at this article it is so obvious that improvement is perfectly possible that I agree this is a bad faith nomination. Second, who is to say that lumping together what the USSR and the Anglosaxons did in 1945 was not comparable. Example one: King
    Pan Gerwazy 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Comment. King Leopold II of Belgium died on December 17, 1909. Where and when did he make the alleged statement about "Americans and British ... coming to Belgium in 1944"? Turgidson 16:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that you changed now to King Leopold III of Belgium. Same question, though: where and when did he make the alleged statement? Is there a source for that? Turgidson 16:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a long list of articles where a particular brand of users seem to be very fast on the draw. Now for the occupation: I know that this is a very difficult part of Belgian history, which nobody really wants to live through again (people old enough to be interested do not write blogs or create websites). But there are books about it and Maurice Dewilde in his TV series paid a lot of attention to this political testament of Leopold III. Of course, they can be traced on the web, if you know Dutch or French: "Leopold nam ook een redelijk negatieve houding aan tegenover de geallieerden, die hij beschreef als "les autorités occupantes".[134]" 134 (at [2] this) gives links to several books in French and Dutch. There is no doubt whatsoever that he used "occupants" and that word later came back to haunt him and his supporters during the Royal Question (unfortunately, there is no English or German article on that constitutional crisis, only Dutch and French - and only the Dutch article mentions the testament - work to be done)--
Pan Gerwazy 17:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Not sure what you mean by "particular brand of user", " very fast on the draw" -- is that a criticism of my drawing attention to your incongruous statement about Leopold II? As for what Leopold III may or may not have said in his "political testament" (I still do not see any reliable reference for that claim, just some kind of a blog, and sorry, I can't read Dutch), I don't see how this affects one way or another the case for or against the article under discussion. Turgidson 18:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this related to the issue at hand? Why don't you take this to Talk:Leopold III of Belgium. -- Petri Krohn 19:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete b/c this article was created by copying fragments from already existing WP articles (compare Aftermath of World War II). This article is an example of selective soursing from WP articles to create a virtually new article supporting a certain POV. I don't care if the POV is legitimate or not, this style of writing (copying from sourses without any thought about how the content is presented in the encyclopedia as a whole) is at the level of 7th grade at best. :Dc76 10:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See results of google scholar search: [3]. There is no such thing as allied occupation of Europe. It was invented in Wikipedia.Biophys 05:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

The article needs to balance between several POVs. The WWII occupation cannot be discussed separately from the

souvereign member state of the United Nations occupation forces? There is a point of view that such toops are in fact occupation. We should however avoid stating this as the only interpretation. On the other hand, the occupation of Berlin only ended in 1991, it can be argued, that troops outside Berlin and Germany, but in support of the front line troops also constituted part of an occupation. -- Petri Krohn 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply
]

P.S - There are strong arguments presented in Talk:Soviet occupation of Romania (and archives), that for something to be called an occupation, it does not have to be a military occupation in the strict sense. -- Petri Krohn 17:49, 17 June 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Allied_occupation_of_Europe&oldid=1142166838"