Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising


 * 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 Keep. Consensus seems that this is not necessarily a POV fork, but rather a fork of a long article in accord with summary style. The title, however, strikes me as a little POV, and I would suggest renaming as discussed below - but that is an editorial decision for the talk page and not an AfD decision. Pastordavid (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Lack of outside support in the Warsaw Uprising

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

"Research into the lack of support of the Warsaw Uprising is (according to historians such as Norman Davies) currently very difficult due to lack of access to archives". Maybe that explains why this reads like a personal essay and lacks proper references. Sadly, I don't think Wikipedia is a great place to remedy the fact that this subject is inadequately covered (under this title) in the sources. Guy (Help!) 10:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as inherently POV title. Merge anything salvageable into Warsaw Uprising. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The article wasn't tagged as nominated for deletion; I have done so. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs)
 * Keep It has some citations; it could use more, but it looks like good information. The tone's only a little iffy; I wouldn't say it reads like an essay. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't an essay at all but a historical truth, but the title of this article is too provocative. It remains me of the witch hunt conducted by the once London based Polish government in exile responsible for failing of the Uprising years ago, and they still looking until this very day - who to blame? - anyone but us. greg park avenue (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, obvious POV-fork. The world knows that the Soviets probably stopped across the river to let the Uprising be crushed, but that can be dealt with within the uprising article. -- Relata refero (disp.) 12:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.   -- Iain99Balderdash and piffle 14:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV, un-encyclopedic, maybe merge with Warsaw uprising. Yopie 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as a POV fork. The lack of support was obvious, but it should be treated in the main article instead.--Berig (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as a POV fork. The alternative is "Lack of outside support for ..." articles on all losers of wars (and this wasn't even technically a war). --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. I really don't see a problem here. Four years ago in August, the article was initiated as a split from main article on the Warsaw Uprising. It was since expanded from 5,487 characters to 19,942 characters including a list of reliable sources. What it needs is a good edit from the League of Copyeditors, that's all. Please keep things in perspective. --Poeticbent talk  18:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Properly sourced, and a legitimate spinoff of material too large to incorporate into the main article about the Warsaw Uprising. Mandsford (talk) 22:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Subarticle of the Warsaw Uprising; an old FA. It was suggested during the FA process to split up some long sections of the article into the subarticle to make it readeable. I am not disputing that this article can use much improvement, but to delete it as a fork would be an error. It is a notable historical issue and the article contains valuable content not used elsewhere on Wikipedia.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If not a POV-fork, it should be elementary to demonstrate its independent notability by producing a couple of books or academic papers specifically addressing the lack of outside support and not the uprising in general. Once that's done, I will change my !vote. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are many specialized scholarly articles related to this issue:, , , , , and many others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Silly Piotrus. Those books are in Polish and are therefore biased and cannot be used. Ostap 01:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to Ostap's point, but the English books don't deal with "lack of outside support" so much as "the Warsaw Uprising as part of the War overall", which might be the location for a suitable article. They don't quite back up this article. -- Relata refero (disp.) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So no updates on this, then? I'm sorry, but that means that it doesn't need a separate article, and can be dealt with quite effectively within the main article to the degree that it is important. -- Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you can't you can't but personal attack by Ostap should be dealt with. greg park avenue (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * False alarm, Greg. I know Ostap well enough to be sure he was just being sarcastic and he doesn't mean that :) That said, Ostap - remember WP:SARCASM (no need to confuse others who don't know you like Greg).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now I see. You gave him a barnstar and that's why he calls you silly. Nice touch! greg park avenue (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - not the best article, but too much for the Warsaw Uprising article. Ostap 01:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move/Rewrite: If outside support in the Warsaw Uprising constitutes a notable subarticle, then it should be moved to an article by that name: Outside support in the Warsaw Uprising, with salvageable NPOV content no longer tarred by the title's POV brush, and any essayist commentary removed. WilliamH (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I second that as the most sound suggestion and in Wiki style until now. To balance the POV fork I would also suggest to add the other side POV neglected until this time by the emigree publishers - a section titled "Vatican support during Warsaw Uprising" or lack of it, but it supposed to be titled just like that to presume good faith and hope that something survived. greg park avenue (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the title is better.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy move to the new title Outside support in the Warsaw Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't a better name be Foreign support to the Warsaw insurgents? If we want to get read of all unclear issues; outside could refer to the AK's planned assault of leśni on Warsaw which was stopped by the Germans, and support in uprising could be misrepresented as support for the Germans by the non German auxiliaries. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Foreign" is OK with me, sounds even better in retrospekt to "Lesni" meaning Home Army guerrillas. "Insurgents" smells of New York Times milder name for terrorists, too politically correct, doesn't apply for 1944 Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: The word "support" implicitly suggests an allegiance as opposed to mere involvement, so I propose to disambiguate this even further with a move to: Foreign involvement in the Warsaw Uprising. This could detail foreign assistance provided to both Poles and the Axis. I don't agree with the word "insurgents" though, it sounds too politically motivated. WilliamH (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And that's the right word - "allegiance" - the merit of this article is "support" - no one then in 1944 expected mere involvement from anyone - only from those who pledged allegiance meaning France, England, Home Army guerrillas, later Soviet Union and the Roman-Catholic Church in Rome with its pledged since centuries moral support. So I stay with your previous version, slightly modified Foreign support in the Warsaw Uprising. greg park avenue (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep + Expand This article should simply be an expansion of a section in Warsaw Uprising and there is no POV in the title (that fact that outside support was very weak is supported by mainstream historians). The only problem is that it seems this article is shorter than corresponding section in the main Warsaw Uprising article. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep or merge. As Piotrus noted, back in 2004 many people believed that articles longer than 30 or so kilobytes should be split onto separate sub-articles. This proved a disastrous tactics as main articles got updated to 2008 wiki standards while sub-articles are neglected and did not change much since then. Virtually no in-line citations, no pics, nothing. Having said that, I'd support re-integration of all sub-articles listed at Warsaw Uprising into the main article. If that's not possible - I see no need to delete it.  // Halibutt 22:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: Notable issue often cited in WWII literature. Yes, more sources needed, but there are SOME sources and the article is usable as a starting point Randroide (talk) 22:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep-notable, researched and vital to understanding of several historic and even current issues.--Molobo (talk) 14:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep+Move. Notable and referenced subject. Needs to be renamed. Visor (talk) 07:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment the last few !votes are puzzlingly content-free. Relata refero (disp.) 08:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV fork. If kept article should be renamed to a non POV title. KleenupKrew (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The subject "Lack of outside support in XYZ" is a shame to Wikipedia. If that is tolerated, anybody can come along claiming that "lack of outside support" is responsible for anything that failed, from uprisings to sports teams, books, movies, etc. And BTW: there is a certain online encyclopedia which is rapidly losing support, inside and outside, due to the incredible shenanigans tolerated there. -- Matthead Discuß   15:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per arguments by Piotrus.Biophys (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to clarify my position on this discussion. I certainly think that 3rd party involvement in the Warsaw Uprising is notably encyclopedic; the thing I find most problematic is the title. I understand the keep sentiments put forward by contributors to this debate, but "Lack of" is strikes me as a troublesome POV fork. If consensus deems the article worthy of keeping, great, I just think it would be far more balanced and appropriate to give the article a title which doesn't allow partiality to be implicitly suggested. I don't really have much else to add. WilliamH (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply. Perhaps you are right about the title. But nominating an article for deletion is not a proper way to discuss renaming.Biophys (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: Quite right. WilliamH (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. POV title and fork. If there is something in this article valuable, which needs preservation, such info can be transfered into WU article.M.K. (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (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.