Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Discipline in Nazi Germany


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Discipline in Nazi Germany
Original research / POV essay. Sandstein 16:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Poorly written and totally unencyclopedic. Bobby1011 16:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unsourced, POV, highschool essay.   [[Image:Monkeyman.png]]Monkeyman 16:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Aaron 16:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete original research, redundant per numerous other articles. Guy 17:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Undisciplined essay -- Ruby  17:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant, probably OR. MartinRe
 * Comment Have notified creator that their article was nominated for afd as per etiquette MartinRe 19:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand the policy to "notify the creator and/or main contributor(s) of the article before nominating, as they may be able to address concerns raised" to mean that notification is not necessary when no conceivable edit can address the issue, as in this case: original research remains original research. Sandstein 20:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I still believe it is policy to notify them, as they may be able to address the concernes &mdash; even for an unsalavage article, &mdash; they might agree with you, and speedy it as creator. Even if it's not strict policy, I believe it would be polite to do so, regardless. MartinRe 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What harm does it do? Johnleemk | Talk 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * A persuasive argument. Just zis Guy you know? 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I see. What do you consider an appropriate time to wait for the author to address the issues raised? Frankly, I can't imagine some of the editors that create the sort of article that ends up on AfD to be eager to constructively discuss these articles' shortcomings - and wouldn't it save everyone's time to have this discussion directly here on AfD? Sandstein 13:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * There's no fixed time in my view, depends on many factors, contribution history (recent?/regular?) when article as last edited, has editor edited since message. BTW, assuming an editor won't be eager to discuss their article goes against AGF, in my view. They may be well meaning and simply unaware that it's not approppiate. Put yourself in the shoes of a well intentioned newbie, they create an article, come back a week later, and it's gone. Nothing, no message, nothing to show why their hard work was rejected (unless they figure out how to find the article discussion on afd). That would be harsh, and it should be avoided if possible. MartinRe 14:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * AGF, as MartinRe says. If the author doesn't show up by the time the AfD closes, generally it should be ok to forget about it, IMO. Johnleemk | Talk 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It would also be nice if the admin who deleted the page, informed the user with a link to the afd discussion, in case the reason the editor didn't show up was because they hadn't accessed wikipedia at all while the debate was going on. Anyway, as this getting very non-specific to this entry, I'm going to add a comment along the above discussion on the afd talk page for discussion. MartinRe 14:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, essay. Pavel Vozenilek 19:05, 21 February 2006 (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.