Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SS Marschiert in Feindesland


 * 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. Despite the nom having been withdrawn, there are significant concerns voiced by the "delete" !votes, so I am closing this as "no consensus", with no prejudice to re-nominating in a month or so if improvements are not forthcoming. Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

SS Marschiert in Feindesland

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable Nazi song. Stop Nazi propaganda in Wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:40, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. The rewritten article addresses both my objections: it does demonstrate both minimal notability and its non-acceptability. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * (Expanded nomination rationale; I thought it was self-obvious, but obviously not, per discussion below)
 * The article cites no sources. I did some googling, but did not find sufficient encyclopedic discussion.
 * The article contents is the song itself and the summary the song + one minor remark that its content varied. The song is Nazi propaganda. Its summary is summarized Nazi propaganda. Therefore the whole article is nothing but uncritical retelling of Nazi propaganda masquerading as encyclopedia.
 * How this can be unclear, beats shit out of me. You may try and refute my argument (and even convince me that my judgement is wrog), but you cannot tell me that I am an idiot beating dead horse. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 03:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's no Nazi propaganda in an article about a marching song. Whether this topic is significant enough for a Wikipedia article is under discussion, but please don't mischaracterise the debate. Wikipedia is not required to sanitise its content because some people may be offended by it. Just think, if this was a British or American marching song (not that they're so prevalent in English-speaking countries), would there be an article on it? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes the article content is nothing but propaganda of jolly and valiant Waffen-SS and nothing more. And sure SS and the rest of Waffen fought "Red plague" in Poland and did not rape and pillage and destroy. The only non-propaganda content is (unreferenced) "The lyrics changed as the war went on". Staszek Lem (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You clearly can't distinguish between an article saying what the song said and what the article itself is claiming! This is not propaganda. Does the article say the Waffen-SS were "jolly and valiant"? No, it does not. Does the article glorify them or Nazism? No, it does not. It merely describes a song they sang, just as other articles describe the uniforms they wore or the ranks they held. Why? Because those are facts, not propaganda, and this is an encyclopaedia that contains facts to improve the knowledge of its readers. Don't make ridiculous claims. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close - due to illegitimate reasoning per WP:DEL-REASON. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 13:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * FUI 'nn' means "nonnotable. Quite legitimate, I say. Also see DELREASON item 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". Or you think that Nazi propaganda (this is article's 100% content) is suitable for Wikipedia? Staszek Lem (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't push it. I will concede that you and I have a disagreement about WP:DEL-REASON #14. But in your nomination you simply said that the song is non-notable, and the nomination and your further comments contain no actual reasoning except "propaganda" which has been debunked by others in this discussion. The burden of proof is on you to prove your own judgement of non-notability. See if you can do this without sarcastic accusations on what other people care about. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 18:19, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry colleague, you got it upside down. I do not have to prove non-notability; the article writers do. The only thing here you may accuse me is of lacking due diligence. Well, I did some googling. The song is mentioned here and there, but no encyclopedic discussion. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment in order to get a few things straight. Nazi propaganda is not acceptable in Wikipedia because propaganda of any type is unacceptable in Wikipedia. The Signpost article by contributor K.e.coffman about the perceived Nazi slant of some Wikipedia articles is a fine piece of work (you might want to bookmark it) but it's an editorial, an opinion, a personal testimony; not a rule. It is superseded by the very strict rule about forbidding propaganda of any kind here!
 * For instance, we have articles about "Adolph Hitler" and "Heinrich Himmler" and "Reinhard Heydrich" and other such personalities on Wikipedia. We also have articles about Nazi-glorifying media, e.g. Triumph of the Will. Why? Oh, because they are notable, as simple as that. Therefore, the horse about "stopping Nazi propaganda" is dead on the starting gate. Well intentioned - but irrelevant. Among the reasons listed in WP:DEL-REASON, only notability is valid here. I'd have opted for a "Speedy Close" of this nomination if lack of notability were not invoked. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes we have article about Hitler. But his article is not 100% Nazi propaganda. Whereas the discussed one does. We have the article about Nazi propaganda, just as we have an article about pornography. Bu we do not article which is exclusively porggoraphy or exclusively Nazi propaganda. Also you are contradicting yourself. First you say that any propahanda is inadmissible. And in next line you say that the horse is dead. OK. Let's get away from ad Hitlerum. Suppose you have an article 100% sourced from, say, Great Soviet Encyclopedia. How you delete it basing on NOTABILITY (or WP:RS) alone? The GSL is a reliable source for one things (places, science, ets.) and completely Communist POV for political things. The only difference is the possible amount of Communist propaganda. Sorry the horse is not dead. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting even more way from Hitler. We a have a topic "magnecule". It is established that this is pseudoscience. Therefore we do not have standalone article about "magnecules" no matter how many is written about them. Despise some serious scientists wasted time to debunk the bunk, we are not going to create numerous wikipedia articles about inventions of Ruggero Santilli: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of his theories. Same here. I am not against a generic article, List Nazi propaganda songs (cf. List of Nazi propaganda films), but I am strongly against having a separate page for each and every one without any critical discussion. There are notable ones, such as Horst-Wessel-Lied. But I would not call our article about it "nazi propaganda". Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, you're wrong. Notable propaganda is acceptable in Wikipedia. You chose to ignore the article on a film that's pure Nazi propaganda, Triumph of the Will. There are many, many more like that, e.g. The Eternal Jew. But why don't I direct you to our little (actually rather large) "List of Nazi propaganda films"?
 * If the contested article is indeed "full of propaganda" I already explained to you that Wikipedia frowns upon propaganda, any and all propaganda, so why don't you go ahead and improve it, starting with the defenestration of prop text? Because, if the subject is assessed to enjoy independent notability, the article stays up, no matter how odious it might be. So, the only "critical discussion" we can have is on the notability front. Anything else only weakens your argumentation and distracts. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting my argument. I did not write "full of propaganda" . I wrote "100% propaganda, and this is impossible to fix due to lack of sources". You are fighting with windmill, dragging red herring, putting your words in my mouth, preaching to the choir, and whats not. I do agree with your last point about distraction. I will be wiser in the future. NOTCENSORED is a red rag to a bull indeed. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you're saying, but it's no big deal. If the quotation marks are confusing you, know that they do not always mean someone's quoting you verbatim; as far as I am concerned, when I quote someone, it's made clear I do. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

* Delete per WP:TNT. The subject of the article is most probably notable per my BEFORE. However, it is currently unsourced and mainly contains the text in German and in English a description of the text - which is a NOTREPOSITORY sort of thing that should go to wiki source. If someone picks up the gauntlet and turns this to an actual Wikipedia article - ping me and I will change my !vote.Icewhiz (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this atrociously put together text for its total lack of supporting evidence of the subject's independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note I'm also fine with moving this to draft.Icewhiz (talk) 15:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering it is not longer a WP:NOTLYRICS fail and nom has withdrawn. Following TNT it is perhaps a workable stub, though sourcing does not establish notability it is probably notable - so I'm neutral.Icewhiz (talk) 10:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep . Comment. Sure, this is a propaganda song, but it is a notable one, judging from Google books search . Yes, it is currently unsourced, but it can be sourced if anyone cares. By the same logic on could delete Wide is My Motherland and a lot of other similar pages. This is not a glorification of anything, but merely a subject that passes our notability guidelines, I think.My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Google hits is not an argument. 95% are novels. Others are mentioning in passing "they sung "SS Machiert" Staszek Lem (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I do not know German. Perhaps you are right. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 *  Weak Delete  - I second Icewhiz, except replace TNT with V/NOR. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've struck my !vote as the nom wishes to withdraw and I don't wish to stand in the way. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:31, 9 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - it was a well-known song in Third Reich and is notable for being sung often by Neo-Nazis in Germany as well as elsewhere (such as in Estonia).Miacek (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Songs are supposed to be sung right? Lets write an article "Majteczki w kropeczki" ("Polka-dot Panties"; cf. Polkadot Bikini) then. About 36,800 google hits. I say on par with SS Marschiert in Feindesland: About 45,200 results. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you wanna write an article, say, on Ukochany kraj you're very much welcome to do so (I cannot do it myself, being topic-banned).Miacek (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, with my character, I'd rather do "Wychowanie" : "Ojczyznę kochać trzeba i szanować/Nie deptać flagi i nie pluć na godło" (for other people: it is an ironic parody to sugar-sweet duper-duper patriotic songs) allegedly by Zygmunt Staszczyk. As for 'Ukochany', the proper place for it is "Polish patriotic songs". I will see what I can do tomorrow: it does have verifiable notability and curiosity. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment the italian wp has an article on the song here, but referencing is not helpful. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's available in Russian, Bulgarian, Estonian and a number of other wikis, too, where sources have been provided.Miacek (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep and possibly rename to Devil's song. Indeed, here is the link to corresponding page on French wiki, and there is a version on ruwiki - see ru:Чёртова_песня and other projects. A more focused Google books search for "Devil's song SS Marschiert" does recover a number of RS on the subject (check this, for example). Of course it might be also merged to Nazi_songs. BTW, there was a poem by Paul Verlaine where he tells that unlike love, hatred will not leave any memory about itself in a song. This is not exactly the true. History keeps the record. So should we. My very best wishes (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The book you linked to is a fiction mystery novel by Bear Grylls. Did you mean to link to a different source? Smmurphy(Talk) 15:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this link is only good to see that the song is widely known and appears in literature, including fiction. If anyone wants to describe the history of creation of the song (for example), they would need some RS. But I am not interested in this subject and simply commented on the AfD. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Close: Whatever rationale the nom bolted onto this to make it look good, it's plain he's got an agenda here, and this is obviously a bad faith nomination. Wikipedia is still not censored, even for Nazi-related subjects.  Nha Trang  Allons! 18:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete: a nn song. I see a couple of mentions of the name of the song in RS, but they are in passing and coincidental. In-depth discussion of the song itself not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep possibly rename to Teufelslied. Staszek Lem's rational appears to be that the Nazis are a menace and that deleting this article will help combat them. I would like to reassure him that the Nazis have already been defeated and they aren't coming back. Besides, surely it is a good thing to preserve evidence of where they admit to being evil? Woscafrench (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You are sorely mistaken. Nazis are back. read some wikipedia, e.g., "Neonazism". Please explain how this article shows that it was evil. Yes, since there is no critical discussion in WIkipedia how this song is evil, the only way in Wikipedia today to combat the evil is to delete it. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not accurate to compare neo-Nazis with the SS. The SS were pretty serious. Woscafrench (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Staszek Lem, you could not have been more wrong. You wrote: "The only way in Wikipedia today to combat the evil is to delete it." Nope, entirely incorrect. And not only that, but this type of argumentation leads me to believe that the best way foward might be a speedy close of this AfD.
 * Wikipedia is not where you make combat with "evil." The rules are crystal clear: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda. The subject of an article may very well be propagandistic (as for example this article's subject, the song, indeed is) but we contributors are not allowed to engage in anti-propaganda postings or engage in personal, ideological battles. If you're not happy with this state of affairs, then you're not happy with Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem: Ah, so you are confirming that you believe this should be deleted simply because it's about a Nazi topic and doesn't contain a load of waffle highlighting how evil the Nazis were. In that case, definite Speedy Keep. Clear misuse of AfD to push an agenda and attempt to censor Wikipedia. This is not what we are here for. Get down off your soapbox and contribute to Wikipedia properly. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No not "simply". Learn to read, buddy. Shut up your mentor tone and other insults. I am not calling you Nazi-agenda pusher, right? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If you did, you couldn't be more wrong! I am in no way a "Nazi-agenda pusher" or a supporter of any extremist ideology. How am I insulting you by telling you to stop trying to get articles deleted by misrepresenting their content, which you clearly are doing? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment You all guys seem not to see difference between texts which are propaganda and texts about propaganda. Second, You cannot be more wrong about combatting evil. Yes, I can combat evil in wikipedia following wikipedia rules. Suppose someone posts child pornography picture into wikipedia. I will be combatting evil by deleting it. Wikipedia combatted Scientology propaganda tooth and claw. And so on. The level of immaturity, failure to engage in proper discussion and lack of respect to a non-novice fellow Wikipedian displayed in  this AfD is appalling to me. Good bye to you all. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)


 * You still got things all wrong, Staszek Lem. First of all, there has been no hint of pro- or anti-Nazi sentiments expressed in this little dialogue except by you.
 * Second, Wikipedia did not have any kind of "combat" against Scientology. A bunch of Wikipedia editors tried to create unduly slanted and poorly sourced text in favor of the creed. That attempt has been taken care of, by applying Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, which, let's not forget, are shaped by the community and not some Führer! :-)
 * You invoked the issue of child pornography in support of your stance on political propaganda. Well, there is a very strongly worded policy about the former, whereby editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships..., or who identify themselves as pedophiles, will be blocked indefinitely. In other words, what you're doing on this issue, which is no different than what most of us are doing, is following Wikipedia policy. That's VERY different from what you advocate about presumed "Nazi propaganda." You are NOT supposed to "combat evil by deleting [Wikipedia articles]"! As it has been explained to you many times over in this AfD, Wikipedia is not the place to conduct ideological combat. End of story. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. We have many articles on Nazi concepts and propaganda(e.g. Mischling, or say this image). The question isn't whether it is or not propaganda - but whether it is presented in a critical encyclopedic manner on a notable topic. Copy-pasting propaganda here is a no-go. Reflecting what sources say about notable propaganda is a-ok.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Staszek Lem: I'm afraid the only "immaturity" and "failure to engage in proper discussion" shown here is by the individual to whom it has been explained that Wikipedia is not a soapbox and not a forum to put one's own agenda across, but who continues to claim that they are in the right and others are in the wrong and also appears to make thinly-veiled suggestions that those who don't agree with them are tacit Nazi supporters. This is really not in the spirit of Wikipedia. Nobody is suggesting you're not a useful contributor, but here I think you're letting your own agenda blind you to the validity of others' opinions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, WP:NOTCENSORED, which I wholeheartedly agree with, made you blind and deaf to my argument: there is a huge difference between articles about propaganda and articles which content is nothing but propaganda. I am not running around deleting all the word of Hitler from wikipedia, do I? I am for deleting the text which is 100% propaganda, which, because there is no criticism of this propagande, is in gross violation of our WP:NPOV policy. And since no source is seriously discussing the article subject, the only resort is to delete it. Otherwise I would have expanded it myself, the same way I wrote other articles, such as Chief of Civil Administration, Reich Commissioner for the Consolidation of German Nationhood, or Putinversteher. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out to you already, this article is in no way propaganda. It presents facts, nothing more. How on God's earth is that propaganda? It wasn't propaganda when you nominated it; it isn't now. Its notability may be questionable, but its status as clear non-propaganda is not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: Draft:Teufelslied was declined at AfC in Jan 2018, for lack of notability. Devil's song used to exist, but was nothing but a POV-driven collection of lyrics. It was eventually deleted as Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Devil's Song. In all of it's incarnations, the article was failing WP:N and WP:NOTLYRICS. The articles on other wikis suffer from the same problems. K.e.coffman (talk) 22:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Draft-ify There seems to be enough that it might be possible to write an encyclopedia article on this topic (probably as Devil's song), but the existing references aren't enough and the current article has fatal flaws. While many of the other-language Wikis are just collections of unsourced foreign-language song lyrics, the zh:党卫军在敌境前进 is almost OK. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 19:53, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty to remove all unsourced and blatantly WP:OR text from the article. It wasn't much but, then, the whole article isn't much, either, in terms of size. The stubby remains should be assessed not only for this AfD but for a possible Draft; they promise very little. And I still cannot find any sources besides that obscure, out-of-print book. The lack of independent notability is still prevalent. -The Gnome (talk) 10:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I want to acknowledge The Gnome makes my justification no longer terribly appropriate and register my support for a draftify outcome. Smmurphy(Talk) 14:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * We should also acknowledge Staszek Lem, who, despite having nominated the article for deletion, engaged in source sleuthing about it, improving the text's standing. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I suggested to delete the contested article. But the nomination has been withdrawn and it appears there's no consensus to delete, so perhaps this AfD should be closed down. -The Gnome (talk) 04:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * No good deed goes unpunished, eh. I don't see how this subject is exactly encyclopedic, but I don't have a terribly strong opinion and if the nom wants to withdraw, I struck my !vote so the withdrawal could go forward. In any case, thanks for cleaning it up! Smmurphy(Talk) 05:42, 10 May 2018 (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.