Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence


 * 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 redirect to Juno Beach. It is up to editors to determine whether and which material to merge from the history.  Sandstein  18:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be the article Juno Beach but from a different perspective. I tried to redirect it but that was reverted. If we need to balance the article and merge suitable content in from this that may make sense, but we don't do multiple articles from different national perspectives.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

KWS_PEI on Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence - PM 16 August 2016 21:27 Atlantic Standard Time (Canada)

I wrote this article as Juno Beach is not balanced from the perspective of the Germans fighting on 06 June 1944. I thought that another perspective on the day would be valuable, and fair. The short section on the Germans at Juno Beach understates the commitment and their efforts as the 'defenders' and does not capture their efforts. The Juno Beach article goes beyond the Normandy Landings of 06 June ... carrying on its story into 7 June and beyond. The article I wrote is restricted to the Normandy Landings alone, of 06 June 1944. I felt that balance in the amount of detail at Juno Beach merited the amount of research that I did in exploring the engagement of the German defence on 06 June. I did not want to add greater detail / further content to the Juno Beach article ... as it is about the Canadians and there success, the page I offered is about the Germans and their efforts.

The article pages for 716th Static Infantry Division (Wehrmacht) and 21st Panzer Division (Wehrmacht) are not fully developed, and would not perhaps merit the inclusion of their efforts of 06 June alone ... as both do not have a strong interest group, outside of 21st Panzer Division, from its Afrika Korps days, and I thought my new article would stimulate an interest in that. In doing my research I discovered multiple www. and book sources that do not reveal / tell the German 06 June story correctly, in multiple facets, and I looked to correct their representation with the historical sources that I found.

As each 'editor' has offered suggestions I have 'edited' the article, I offered and continue to do so. A look at the 'View History' shows my commitment to making this article as good as it can be. For several days it had a positive - Military history WikiProject: B-Class review, but that was removed? I am prepared to commit any and all extra effort to make this article acceptable and seek guidance as what to do. I was next going to work the References / Citations ... as I know they need to be 'edited' to a more efficient format. I had been working the article in Word.docx and did not know an efficient way to edit the reference in the text without 'posting' the article. KWS_PEI — Preceding unsigned comment added by KWS PEI (talk • contribs) 00:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * So you're saying you created a WP:POVFORK? - The Bushranger One ping only 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Juno Beach We don't do POVFORKs here. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment People noted forking, but we do have a policy called WP:SPLIT which is used in cases where the section is so massive it could be split into its own article, with a hyperlink linking to it from the main article. Mr. Magoo (talk) 09:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm no military man -- or editor -- but the notion that we're going to start parallel articles on battles and wars from each side's perspective seems unworkable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge content to the articles on the beaches, and to relevant units where applicable (I think some details may need to go along the way, and the comma overload needs to be tackled). If, when done, the article is overlength then is the time to consider what can be hived off to child articles. I'd also delete rather than redirect when done as the article title doesn't really match up with naming conventions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

KWS_PEI on Normandy Landings Juno Beach Defence What I am trying to do is contribute a summary-style spin-off of new material that when ‘assessed’ could be linked other articles. The article Juno Beach contains a section with a summary of this Normandy Landings Juno Beach defence article, at present without a link to it. Understanding this is acceptable, and often encouraged, I was aiming to make readings of the German engagement in the Normandy Landings clearer and easier to manage. This would perhaps be a content fork as a separate article, treating the same subject. I did not originally name this as a Juno Beach article … the current title of the article came up in a move made by an editor. It is a small point but Juno is a sector of five beaches … and I was aiming to look at German activities in the Sector, without immediate direct naming in reference to the Beach. If it is seen as a POV fork … I have done something wrong? The contribution was not created in avoiding a neutral point of view, as I suggest it offers no point of view. The Germans 716 ID and 192 PzGren-Regt fought hard and they imposed a delay on the Canadians. If I am seen to have highlighted negative or positive viewpoints, or un-referenced facts, then I would see the contribution is undesirable. The article was originally in list format and an editor suggested it be rewritten in prose, which I did. If in that edit I created a point of view, with a comma overload, I can edit the prose to remove additional detail, in my style. I understand there is the lead Operation Overlord and Invasion of Normandy then Normandy landings and Juno Beach each major subtopic is detailed in its own section of the former article. The Juno Beach article is long enough, I thought, and considered that as very long articles cause problems, I was looking to perhaps pre-empt a split. I thought I was contributing a fuller treatment of a major subtopic, the German defence, as a separate article, of its own. I perhaps made the mistake of developing a new contribution, not as a subtopic (as one existed) before summarizing it in a new article, this article is not intended to a parallel article. In several paragraphs of the contribution, I was aware of the treatment of some of the material I quickly touched, which is available in good detail. On the fortification of Juno Beach there is a good treatment of the subject at German fortification of Guernsey that I did not take any text from. The strong-point and resistance nests which I set out, in a some detail, did not get a level of detail I considered for their own treatment, such as WN17 or StP.Douves articles I was aware of, but did not chose to emulate. I felt the level of detail I did capture was in good balance – of a removing its earlier heavy concentration in a list format. If there is a view that detail is unnecessary, I can remove it? KWS PEI (talk • contribs) 16:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- When the lead opens with "The Normandy Landings Juno Beach defence, among many things, called on the resolve and steadfastness of a German defender, to fight without hope of reinforcement, or relief, if landings were to be denied", this strongly suggests POV forking. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I also have concerns about the language and sourcing in the article; I'm not sure if it's salvageable or suitable for merging. For example:
 * The Atlantikwall Frankreich (Basse Normandie) of Küstenverteidigungs ("Costal Defence Area") - K.V.Gruppe (Regimental Sector) Courseulles, was not at its strongest at its subordinate: K.V.U.Gruppe (Battalion Sector) Seulles, as it was thought that four offshore reefs (Les Roches de Ver, Les Iles de Bernieres, Les Roches de Lion, and Les Essarts de Langrune) would impede any landing and led to landings there being considered quite improbable. The Atlantikwall at Juno Beach consisted of one strongpoint (Stutzpunkte - StP) and seven "Resistance nests" (Widerstandnesten - WN), each laid out with several concrete casemates, equipped with any number of anti-tank guns (50 mm and 75 mm), machine guns, integrated minefields, barbed wire and connecting field entrenchments.  The Stützpuntkte (StP) or Strong-Point (Company Sized), at Courseulles-sur-Mer, was a complex fortified position, strengthened by numerous standard concrete fortifications, additionally with artillery field guns, defending the entry to the River Seulles. The strong-point layout astride the river followed no particular design, each established on the basis of weapons available, the terrain features of the location, and troops to occupy. The concrete fortifications - casemates were supported by earthen entrenchments, in which mortars and heavy machine guns were emplaced, its two positions manned by about 30-50 men, intended to fight under independent command, for an extended period of time.
 * Crossing into the Seulles Valley, 7 CIB first contacted Batterie 3./ Sch.Art.Abt 989. east of Creully, manning four 12.2 cm sFH 396(r) Feldhaubitze (heavy field howitzers) and then came to encounter Panzerjäger-Abteilung 200./Panzer-Division 21. to their east which blocked movement to their objective, the Caen-Bayeux road. Panzerjäger-Abteilung Pz.Jg.ABt.200., commanded by Major Werner Freiherr von Lyncker, while limited in transport with no armoured vehicles, his three companies, with their low profile Panzerjägerkanone fielded effective capacity. (See Note 4.) The Canadian Brigade, now together across the Seulles, first came up against the forward platoons, of Pz.Jg.Ko 3./Pz.Jg.ABt.200., starting its day at Camilly,


 * The article uses ancient sources (1940s and 1950s) plus a non-RS website www.atlantikwall.org.uk. It's difficult to read as well due to excessive use of German language terms, abbreviations and intricate detail, and its tone is non-neutral. I wonder if TNT may be applicable. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I will just say this: since we do have a number of lists of Allied ships, which represent, I suppose, the Allied preparations for this historic assault I suppose it's not necessarily out of the question that we have an article on the Nazis' own preparatory infrastructure? If so, and if kept, I believe a rename would be in order to be more in line with our X of Y naming structure, along the lines of German defences at Juno Beach, or some such. Tonally, the article still has many issues of course, and has been tagged as such. The article's current lead which fawningly reports on "the resolve and steadfastness of a German defender" is but one particularly creepy example.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The massive number of Capital Letters and commas in use in the article suggests a Germanic influence. I'd put blame on tone as translation limitations rather than deliberate bigging-up. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Redirect and possibly merge suitable material (if any) per my comment above, and current article tag "This article may need to be rewritten entirely to comply with Wikipedia's quality standards. (Change from "Delete", as I'd rather not see this close as "no consensus". I hope those voting "merge" would be willing to do the work, as it would be a difficult one, due to POV and sourcing concerns -- pls see below)K.e.coffman (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is the only !vote with a bolded delete, but what is the WP:DEL-REASON? There is a concern of "I'm not sure if it's salvageable or suitable for merging.", which means that merging has not been ruled out.  There is an objection of "ancient sources (1940s and 1950s)", but ancient reliable sources are still reliable sources.  WP:V sources are acceptable that are, "difficult to read", that "use...German language terms", that use "abbreviations", and that use "intricate detail".  Also, reliable sources with "tone is non-neutral" are acceptable.  "Article tags" is not listed at WP:DEL-REASON.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason for deletion is that the article an unnecessary and POV content fork. Regarding sources, such as The Battle of the 716th Infantry Division in Normandy, Wilhelm Richter, 1947. US Army Europe MS #B-621 / Guide to Foreign Military Studies: All German studies written for the US Historical Division were done without benefits of records -- from memory. These sources are not considered reliable by contemporary historians. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or Merge -- There is a lot of detail here German defence at Juno Beach might be appropriate. It is inevitable that the article about the landing and battle should in the English WP be written with a British/US POV.  This one is written from a German POV.  Ideally we would have one article dealing with it from both viewpoints, but that would require a top flight academic historian, which the typical WP editor is unlikely to be.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Wrong forum WP:DEL5 states, "5. Content forks (unless a merger or redirect is appropriate)".  But we already know that a redirect was considered appropriate by the nominator.  Many of the editors here agree that someone else should do a merge, but an AfD merge recommendation is not binding on the content contributors who must make the decisions after the AfD.  And I think people agree that this merge is non-trivial.  I don't see why German defence at Juno Beach cannot have its own article, but this is a content issue, not an AfD issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:30, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge: to Juno Beach p  b  p  15:25, 25 August 2016 (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.