Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International response to the Holocaust


 * 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 keep. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

International response to the Holocaust
Delete  Article is POV fork and poorly cited, seems to contribute little to nothing of importance if POV is removed. Also includes origional research, violating WP:NOR. Very useful and well-written information related to this topic is already covered in The Holocaust. Further, the information in this article is often simply copied from other articles on Wikipedia. Strothra 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a POV fork; POV forking is not an accepted method of resolving content disputes. Merge anything that's NPOV and not already covered in The Holocaust, if desired. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep - POV cannot be listed as a reason for AFD. An important aspect of 20th century history. The Holocaust is way too long to cover this topic. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment  um. POV is not the only reason for listing this article for AfD.  It is only one of the many reasons it should be removed not to mention the fact that article contributes nothing useful that is not already included in other articles.  For instance, I removed a section on Bermuda Conference which was simply being used to push an unresearched opinion which I had replaced in the article Bermuda Conference with a researched and neutral article. --Strothra 22:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * "nothing useful" and "little to nothing of importance" is an extreme POV. You either don't understand what you are talking about or want to hide historical facts. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:58, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not accuse me of attempting to hide historical facts. My comments on here can be as POV as I wish to make them.  My articles and article edits, however, are not POV. The fact remains that the information in this article is copied word-for-word in many instances from other articles in Wikipedia which still merits this article for deletion no matter how much your own personal biases make you wish to keep it.  --Strothra 23:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is a valid encyclopedic subject and serious scholars wrote numerous volumes about it. Let's improve the article, not delete it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I very well agree that an article on this topic would suit Wikipedia quite well but there is nothing of use in this article. It is poorly researched & written and what could be left in the article already exists in several other articles on Wikipedia. Isn't that bordering on a copyvio? What I am saying is that this article should be deleted and then replaced at a later time by another article that is better researched and written by in an unbiased manner.  --Strothra 23:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the assessment "nothing of use in this article" and don't see a valid reason for removal. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I think we may just have to disagree on that perpetually. A 100% overhaul of this article is needed.  I'm not saying that the same topics cannot be carried over into a new article because they can be incorporated into it and probably very well should be.  What I am saying, is that a new article must be created which should hold researched material which is not copying directly from other articles.  Perhaps it should be more of a general overview and include Wikilinks when neccesary to other articles on Wikipedia.  As it stands now, the article seems to be a compilation of topics which already have their own respective articles on Wikipedia. --Strothra 00:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No one says it is perfect, but your requirements seem to be much more rigorous here than for other articles/subjects. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Please don't make implications. I believe that a good many of the articles which are on Wikipedia are poor and I have put plenty up for deletion and voted to delete many of them.  This article is no different thant he others.  I am not making requirements, I am making suggestions for improvement of the article which are all reasoned, reasonable, and possible.  It is an interesting topic which deserves a much better article which is not simply a compilation of articles which already exist on Wikipedia.  --Strothra 00:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Then put a cleanup or attention tag on it instead of nominating it for deletion. Per Wikipedia's deletion policy, articles that need a lot of improvement do not belong on AfD. jgp 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep per Humus.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep but rewrite. It looks like a daughter article split off from holocaust.  There needs to be a navigation footer or sidebar to link up with the other articles.  Above criticisms have significant merit and need to be properly addressed.  Compare and contrast with Role of the international community in the Rwandan Genocide. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 23:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article may need to be rewritten, but putting it on AfD is the wrong way to get attention. Perhaps bad-faith nom too, given the nominator's comments in this discussion ("making suggestions for improvement of the article" is _not_ a reason to list something on AfD). jgp 02:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * How about reading my comments again before you attack me. I stand by my deletion nomination because I feel that the article should be more than merely a grouping of existing articles on Wikipedia.  I have stated this already but apparently you wish me to repeat myself because you do not like to or are unwilling to read.  I have stated above that this article should be deleted in its current form.  Sure, another article under this same topic, may be doable but not as it is.  It should be deleted.  Someone may wish to attempt writing a new article that is researched and does not simply copy info from other articles.  I, and other editors, have begun attempting to make edits to the article but it doesn't seem to be losing its laundry list form. --Strothra 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * According to _official Wikipedia policy_ if an article simply needs to be cleaned up and rewritten, it _should not be deleted_. It even specifically lists the templates to use if that is the case. If an article under the topic is doable, and the article in question is not a duplicate, it does not belong on AfD. Since you have admitted that the article topic is a valid one, and you persist in trying to get it deleted after being informed of Wikipedia policy, your nomination is in bad faith and you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Furthermore, I consider your comments towards me to be personal attacks. jgp 03:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Funny, because I consider your comments to be personal attacks but you are attempting to turn it around to make it seem as if I am attacking you. Let me clarify my official position on this AfD as simply as I can once and for all, superceding any of my prior statements:  It should be deleted because it appears to have been created as a POV Fork.  Perhaps it is doable, I don't know that because I have not seen a doable form of the article.  Because I cannot see into the future I can neither confirm nor deny the doability of the article.  If you could create one and replace what already exists then I will see that it is doable and change my vote.  I am not violating any Wiki policy in that statement. As per the discussion resulting from the above AfD process I have begun to institute changes in the article in cooperation with other editors.  There is nothing wrong with this because it is considered to be improving Wikipedia and acting in a good faith manner.  Please see WP:AGF - I find it interesting how you insist on citing Wiki policy yourself when you continuously violate it.  If you assume bad faith of me then I cannot help but to take that as a personal attack and assume bad faith of you.  I have been acting in good faith in my edits, If you need proof of this, see my edits to the article along with the edits of editors with whom I have been working with.  Simply because I have attempted to improve an article after I have nominated it for deletion does not put me in violation of any Wikipedia policy.  Nominating an article for deletion does NOT exclude an editor from attempting to improve that article.  --Strothra 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Humus. The Holocaust article is TOO small, it needs multiple expansions on all its major topics, such as this one. IZAK 04:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not a POV-fork, but rather should be a good main article for a section in The Holocaust. Pecher Talk 07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but hopefully replace the text with something better sourced and better written. -- GWO
 * Keep even though it was evidently created as a POV fork, as early versions show, and the straw men and weasel words remain. However there is a decent article to be had from this controversial topic, even though this certainly isn't it. Cleanup instead of deleting. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 10:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as it's a valid subject and the main article is long as it is. Agree with all cleanup comments above. Tyrenius 13:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. It's a valid subject, but it's strongly biased, and may be a copy-vio of the single "Suggested Reading".  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not a copy vio of the "Further Reading." That book was added by myself after the fact.  It's a fairly right-leaning criticism of the U.S. historical slowness to react to human rights abuses abroad.  Take the book as you will but it's an interesting one written by a Harvard faculty member.  --Strothra 18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep How can you say that it's biased, and add new paragraphs? When I wrote this article I meant to write about the international bodies did during the Holocaust, which was relatively very little, and not after  it. I feel that the article is not biased and regarding the Vatican's response, I mentioned that Pope Pius XII did act in favor of the Jews, and just said that the Vatican apologized for not taking a stronger position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtremesquish (talk • contribs)
 * Keep, encyclopedic topic. However, needs to be rewritten from NPOV (first paragraph is currently awful). &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  12:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: low quality ranting of someone with axe to grind. Pavel Vozenilek 20:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if what you said is true, these are not legitimate reasons for deletion. ←Humus sapiens ну? 22:12, 26 May 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.