Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946


 * 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 London Victory Parade of 1946. Some material might also be merged to Polish Armed Forces in the West per Peterkingiron. Shimeru (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article hasn't gained enough interest to attract a first review in the 2 weeks since it was made. It was created in the midst of WP:CONSENSUS disagreements at London Victory Parade of 1946, where as far as I am aware there had been WP:ANI and arbitration reports and actions, as well as ongoing ARBCOM discretionary sanctions around the subject area. This article was made by an editor moving content from, and undertaken section blanking at, London Victory Parade of 1946:- so this article is known as a WP:CFORK. When this article was made, there was already supplementary content to London Victory Parade of 1946 at Polish Armed Forces in the West, where that content remains. This article has problems with WP:CLAIM, WP:PRIMARY, WP:SYNTH and therefore WP:OR. It may also have WP:COATRACK and WP:UNENCYC issues. There are also WP:NPOV issues, starting with the title, which takes a position on the debated subject of whether there was or was not Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946. For these reasons, I submit that it should be deleted. Chumchum7 (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As can be seen from a glance at the discussion page from the London Victory Parade of 1946, the consensus from editors there is that this article should have been created. The idea that Polish participation may be better as a separate article was first raised by user:Jacurek on 8 October 2009 saying “perhaps a separate article about the fact that Polish Armed Forces were not invited should be created.” Then on 25 October 2009 I myself proposed that a separate article be created . In the replies to that proposal there was not have even a single word of objection to that proposal, instead I was accused of being a racist. On 29 October a completely uninvolved editor, Stephan Schulz, created a new section titled “ WP:WEIGHT issues” . I again propose a new article. Nobody objects, including Chumchum7. On 21 November another uninvolved editor, Bobanni, comments “The fact that Poland did not participate in the parade is noted on the article. It should not be the focus of this article. That does not take away the insult that many Poles feel. The article should reflect the joy felt in England that the horror of WW II was over. This probably deserves an article all to itself, ie Betrayal of Poland by the Allies.” . I again agree that a new article is needed  and nobody objects to the idea of a separate article. As we have had many different editors complaining about WP:WEIGHT problems and/or proposing that a separate article be created to cover Polish participation at the London Victory Parade of 1946 and the only editor who has ever had a word of objection to that proposal was me (and I have obviously now been convinced of the wisdom of creating such an article), we can very much conclude that the new article has overwhelming support from editors and that consensus has already been gained.
 * I note that although Chumchum7 mentions a number of WP policies and claims that this article breaks them but despite repeated requests, he has failed to go into detail about how the article supposedly breaks them. Isn't it interesting that he completely fails to ignore the WP:CONS that this article is necessary? Varsovian (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add a question for the proposer: the majority of the information and sources in this article refute the oft-made assertion that Poles were excluded from the parade. What do you propose is done with this information if this article is deleted? Should it simply disappear? Varsovian (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep See above. Varsovian (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete the subject is already overcovered in London_Victory_Parade_of_1946 and I can see no good reason for it to be further covered in it's own article. -- RP459  Talk/Contributions 13:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's an interesting topic, and a point of contention for many people - so it's certainly notable enough. That said, whether the content of the article is appropriate is another issue entirely. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I am open to persuasion, but a minimum requirement for me to join you in the idea would be your commitment to help us tackle the issue you have identified. Take a look at the article this has forked from, and what has been going on there for the past month, and help us deal with the issue. Please. -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946. While I'm not keen on the undue weight that the Polish controversy has on the parade article (far mor mention of the controversy than the parade itself); but this coatrack fork is clearly not a better alternative. It might be possible to argue that the controversy is more notable than the parade itself, but it's hard to sort where this is POV and where it's not. The best I can say is to merge it for now, and then broaden the discussion by asking for more opinions on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history.  bahamut0013  words deeds 01:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I`m ready, willing and able to support this idea provided we can get a commitment from Bahamut to participate in realizing this idea. As you can see at Talk:London Victory Parade of 1946 an administrator has identified it as a "battleground". So we need experienced assistance, for this to work. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm hardly a qualified moderator. I'd like to think I'm impartial, but I'm not the right man to sort out this muck, nor do I have the time to devote to it. Like I said, you can broaden the discussion by calling in for help at MPHILHIST and possibly at WP:dispute resolution. But I will reiterate that I don't think AfD was the proper venue.  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. The Polish role is an interesting topic in its own right. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge a summary to Polish Armed Forces in the West. The article consists largely of quotations, which I presume to be accurate, but this is all rather too detailed for an encyclopaedia.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting idea. Again, whichever editor is willing to commit to seeing their idea through to the end, I'm willing to talk things through with. -Chumchum7 (talk) 22:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shimeru (talk) 14:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946. Polish participation or non-participation in the parade is an aspect of the parade and should be covered in the main article. The article up for deletion seems to have been written mostly by copying a lot of block quotes rather than assembling the facts into a proper encyclopedia article anyway. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the one aspect then dominates the article and the article is no longer about a British Victory parade: it is about the perception that many Poles have that Polish representatives were not invited. Varsovian (talk) 12:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * At London Victory Parade of 1946 there has been quite a bit of sourcing from PBS, Norman Davies and Olson & Cloud - none of whom are Polish sources. They have all said that the Polish aspect of the parade was controversial. I am inclined toward Metropolitan90 and Stifle`s idea of a redirect, with liberty to merge, and with close attention to this administrator intervention here: -Chumchum7 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Norman Davies says that Poles participated in the parade. Olson and Cloud base their work on interviews with Polish sources. The one aspect of the British parade overpowers the rest of the article and clearly has problems with WP:WEIGHT. Varsovian (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect to London Victory Parade of 1946, with liberty to merge. Doesn't seem to be a notable enough topic for a standalone article. Stifle (talk) 11:53, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect, won't be much need to merge, as the subtopic is in fact still being covered at the main article too. The problem with the article has never been that the weights of the different topic aspects are objectively too difficult to balance out. The problem has been a dispute owing to national agendas, OR tendencies and ownership attitudes among some of the contributors to that page. In situations like that, it's always a cheap way out to allow the conflict to spread out across more and more articles. It's long been my position that this is counterproductive: the solution to intractable, internally produced POV disputes is not to write more about them, but to write less about them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The current main article has 747 words about Polish participation at the parade and 571 words about everything else connected to the parade. I entirely agree that we should write less: perhaps "Representatives from Poland were invited but did not attend." would be suitable? All editors agree that such representatives were invited and all agree that they did not attend. Aren't topics such as the wrong Poles being invited or not enough Poles being invited etc simply PoV issues? Varsovian (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Make that 949 words about Polish participation at the parade and 571 words about everything else.... Varsovian (talk) 18:44, 22 April 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.