Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oise-Aisne American Cemetery Plot E


 * 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 no consensus. No consensus has emerged in this discussion. Further discussion can continue on the article's talk page. North America1000 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oise-Aisne American Cemetery Plot E

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial has an article. Who needs one for a specific plot? Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Selective merge into Oise-Aisne American Cemetery and Memorial. No need for a separate article, but easily interesting enough to preserve much of the information. Probably don't need the list of graves though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That was the form it took originally. Not necessarily opposed. Eventually it was split into a separate article, but I agree the full list of names is rather unnecessary unless there's sources attesting to their notability. Three names I know for sure DO have those notable sources: Eddie Slovik (HUNDREDS of sources), Louis Till (dozens of sources) and Alex F. Miranda (a few recent sources, since he was repatriated half a century after his execution/burial). Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 06:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem with highlighting notable burials, but there's no need for a full list. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I disagree. Plot E is a very special plot. It is very different from your average war cemetery, like the other parts of the cemetery of which it is nominally part, which contain the graves of those who died serving their country. It has special rules and there are distinct sources. Given the size of this article, I think merging would be WP:UNDUE. I would agree that in general a plot would not warrant its own article, but this is a very special case. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ☮ JAaron95  Talk   18:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I also dislike the idea of even mentioning plot e in the main article because it takes away from the main article of the honored American dead. When I searched the main article I find FIVE mentions of plot e. Plot E should be mentioned at most as a side note of dis-honored American dead. No more than a paragraph or two and a link to the article Capital punishment by the United States military at the very bottom of the article where it will not distract from the rest of the article. Maybe even placing it under the See Also section. I would add information from the pending deletion of plot e article to the article Capital punishment by the United States military with a few more notable related cemeteries like Fort Leavenworth Military Prison Cemetery. Again this is where most of the information of plot e should be mentioned including an image or two. Jrcrin001 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge anything of merit into the parent article, the list of names is not really needed which is undue emphasis. MilborneOne (talk) 15:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Originally, the section on Plot E was merged into the main article, but it was later split off (not by me) due to multiple independent sources and a lot of unique detail that overwhelmed the tame initial article. Frankly, Oise-Aisne Cemetery is no more notable than any of the other two-dozen American military cemeteries in Europe except for the existence of Plot E, which (as I said) is entirely unique and unprecedented for any military. Nobody has a place like Plot E, which is why it has garnered so much independent journalistic coverage. Nobody else buried their "dishonored dead" in a special, separate, honorless place like that with a full backstory supported by references. There's ample sources, I'm really not sure the genesis for the objection here...seems extremely spurious in the face of good sources. I'd like to note, for the reviewing admin's record, that "who needs one?" (as stated by the editor requesting deletion) is the most "drive by" excuse for an WP:AFD I've ever seen. Vintovka Dragunova (talk) 06:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge into another article I am a bit disturbed by the plot e article. One part of me sees this as nothing more than a criminal graveyard being not worthy of an article like thousands of others. The listing of names and crimes seems almost a glorification. These are not honored dead, but dis-honored American criminals. This American graveyard is not "unique and unprecedented" for American dead. To Europeans the major difference is that Americans treat the dead more respectively in burials. This is why Americans took the extra effort for the burial of European enemy combatants. Yes, the Pacific campaign was an exception and unique due the heat and humidity. And also where the Americans even lost thousands of dead Americans in temporary graveyards during the war because of quick burials. Other nations just tossed prisoners into common unmarked graves. Unless the family were able to bribe or pay enough for the corpse.


 * 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.