Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Effects of World War II


 * 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   merge to Aftermath of World War II. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Effects of World War II

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article is almost entirely unsourced, and it is disjointed, disorganised, incomplete, and has been dormant/stagnant for a long time. The subject matter is largely duplicated in existing Aftermath of World War II article. A few bits of sourced text that can be salvaged from this article have already been moved to the Aftermath of World War II article. Some of the graphics/photos may also be salvaged prior to deletion if any. A suggestion has been made to merge it with Aftermath of World War II article, but I believe that's unworkable and not worth the time and effort involved in trying to fix, source and cleanup. Communicat (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Consensus seems to be to retain some aspects and redirect other, useable and pertinent sourced text to Aftermath. I agree. Some of the present original research in this Effects article, if sourced properly, could form the basis for an interesting multi-disciplinary article relative to some of the existing sociological, psychological demographical effects that are contained in this Effects article, but IMO those effects are ancillary and peripheral to military history as such. Whereas Aftermath article places emphasis on military or military-political history, e.g. post-war strategy and tactics, operations, border tensions etc. Communicat (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep An article needing improvement is never a valid reason for deletion. Organization might be different than Nominator would chose, but that should be decided by community consensus. Nominator action is premature; proper discussion for a Merge should take place on the article talk pages. Edward321 (talk) 03:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Aftermath of World War II. The two articles don't distinguish the difference between what qualifies as an "effect" and an "aftermath", so the topic looks largely to be redundant. However, the edit history of Effects of World War II should be retained, in case any of it is salvagable, or if an editor wants to take an unsourced section out, source it, then merge it into the "Aftermath of World War II" article.--hkr Laozi speak  06:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  —Anotherclown (talk) 12:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep so that we can responsibly merge and redirect. The Aftermath of World War II article lacks necessary information that Effects of World War II covers in detail, so someone is going to have to carefully merge the two articles together before redirecting. In any event, there is no rationale for deletion. —  C M B J   20:07, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge to Aftermath of World War II. Seems that there are lots of overlaps and redundancy; but without a clear distinction between teh scope of the two, I see no reason to keep two seperate articles. The merge will have to be done with some care, but shouldn't be too difficult. I don't really care which one is sent where.  bahamut0013  words deeds 21:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. The list of effects is unsourced and thus a synthesis. What should be included in this, apart from material that should equally be covered in the aftermath article? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment based on that definition, Aftermath of World War II is also a synthesis, as are most articles in Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge, Redirect anything that isn't Original Research into Aftermath of World War II. It's essentially same topic. First Light (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2010 (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.