Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendants of Major Nazis


 * 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 DELETE, whether SPEEDY as a recreation contra Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials, or per WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Descendants of Major Nazis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article simply resynthesises existing material from other articles. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  23:21, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Can be done in a category if it's important.--v/r - TP 23:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A category would accomplish the same thing but would have less detail, which would be a disadvantage. There's also nothing wrong with having a list article - that alone is not a valid deletable item.  -OberRanks (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete a bad idea for many reasons (for one, it will inevitably have unsourced names put in it, and is it vandalism or slander? So don't go there.).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I stated below, fear of future vandalism really isn't a valid reason to delete an article. Although, I can appreciate the feeling that that is likely to happen. -OberRanks (talk) 04:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 *  Keep : This is a list article for notable descendents of major Nazis, most of whom already have articles on Wikipedia or have links to external sites.  My main thought here was a type of index page.  A category would work too, I suppose, but there is no reason at present to delete the article. -OberRanks (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Vote Withdrawn: The fact that there was a previously deleted article on the same topic changes everything. That answers my original question about why Wikipedia didn't have an article about this.  This actually now DOES fall under Speedy Delete criteria. -OberRanks (talk) 12:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's one of the reason for deletion. You're just repeating what already exists. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  01:12, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, as the article's creator, isn't it a conflict of interest that you're !voting on your own article's AfD? I'm not sure on the policy here. I would appreciate clarification. — Fly by Night  ( talk )  02:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fairly certain it is not only allowed but encouraged that the creator participate. WP:AFD says that the nominator "While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."  It also says of the discussion "Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article"--v/r - TP 02:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this violates Conflict of Interest either. The article is actually written in a very neutral tone and makes no negative or disparaging remarks about the subject.  It is certainly not an attack page as was originally suggested shortly after the article was created . -OberRanks (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Looking at the Wikipedia guidance and instructions, I have one further comment about this. What we have here is basically an index-list article.  The original nominator of the article deletion stated "article simply resynthesises existing material from other articles" - however that is what a list article does - the entire purpose of a list article is to index existing articles into sections for better location and study.  There is nothing in WP:DELETION which states that it a valid deletion to delete an article.  Furthermore, a LOT of this seems to be stemming from the subject matter and (dare I say) personal feelings about this.  While I can understand that, distaste of a topic is not a valid deletion reason - neither is fear of future possibilities of vandalism as was brought up also.  On top of all of this, the article is also technically sourced with links to existing established Wikipedia articles and external sources as well.  So, really, why is this article up for deletion?  What policy of Wikipedia does it violate or what principal of WP:DELETE applies here?  If that can be firmly stated, then I will fully endorse deletion; but right now, I don't see a valid reason for deletion. -OberRanks (talk) 04:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. We deleted a similar article a couple of months ago at Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials. Among the reasons cited for doing so was that such a list violated WP:BLP by calling "particular attention to a group of people solely by a feature that is both (i) highly negative & (ii) beyond their control". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I also don't support having this be a category, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment People saying a category would be better need to read WP:CLN. Seig Heil.  Lugnuts  (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Articles for deletion/List of descendants of Nazi officials Agathoclea (talk) 08:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a genealogy directoryAgent 86 (talk) 09:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments made for the last list of descendents of Nazis. And by the way, none of the html links in the article (as distinct from the wikilinks) support that these individuals are in any way linked to the Nazi figures with whom they share their surname. For all we know, we're currently smearing a set of random individuals as being descendents of Nazis. Also, if we've got a link to Albert Speer Jr's article, why do we also need a link to his company from a page whose seeming point is to identify him as the son of a prominent Nazi? Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete What we have here is a list of living people that are only notable for who their parents (or uncles, or whatever) were, in an extremely negative sense, violating WP:NOTE and WP:BLP at the same time, and without even sourcing most of the comments made about non-notable people with unfortunate ancestors. Kate (talk) 11:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.