Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stolpersteine in Neratovice


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 12:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Stolpersteine in Neratovice

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A bit reluctant to bring this here, but I think this doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Stolpersteine as such is a notable subject, and list of which locations have stolpersteine, and how many, is also normal. But this, a list of all individual stolpersteine divided by location, becomes excessive detail and a case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL (the holocaust victims individually are in most cases not notable persons).

I've only listed this one page, if it ends in deletion I will start another AfD for the similar lists we have for these (some 30+ pages so far). Fram (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Stolperstein lists are well established in Wikipedias all over Europe, as they describe the only transnational monument of Europe. Stolpersteine have been collocated in 22 countries and lists do exist already in at least seven languages: ca, cs, de, es, hu, it, ld. List in further languages are in preparation. The WikiProject Stolpersteine hat been founded in February 2017 and there was no objection from any side til now. On the contrary, several of the newly created lists have been adopted by the national WikiProjects, such as Belgium, Czech Republic and Germany. IMO there is no need to delete this list as it is part of the encyclopedic documentation (added later) of an international remembrance project.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:30, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Every wiki decides independently which subjects they deem notable, and which are not. The problem is that "this list [...] is part of an international remembrance project.", which is WP:NOT what Wikipedia (or at least enwiki, which is what we are discussing here) is intended for. Fram (talk) 13:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is well within the scope of the English Wikipedia to contain encyclopedic documentation of a notable international project. Creating a list of locations is no different from List of cemeteries in London, perhaps some individually may be notable, others not. It has never been a requirement for a stand-alone list (which is what this article is) to contain only notable entries, as long as the overall topic is notable. You're left questioning the notability of Stolpersteine, of which there is no doubt. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a list of the Stolpersteine in Neratovice. It is not a series of stand alone articles for individual people. I do not see that WP:MEMORIAL applies to such lists. In fact, Wikipedia features numerous lists of people who have received certain awards, but do not meet WP:BIO individually. For example, the consensus established at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) has it, that  KC recipients who do not meet WP:SOLDIER #2-8 and who do not meet the GNG should be redirected to the respective lists. Some of these lists have been promoted to FA-status, not at least because of their comprehensiveness. If there are concerns that such lists are cases of WP:MEMORIAL, those concerns should be discussed at the proper boards of discussion instead of following what seems to amount to a piecemeal approach of individual AfDs. I might add that the Stolpersteine-project is supported by extensive research, often sponsored by official agencies. The database hosted by holocaust.cz, for example, is sponsored by the German embassy in the Czech Republic. So the main argument for deletion seems to be WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a valid argument. Maybe the article should be moved to List of Stolpersteine in Neratovice, though. --Assayer (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC) P.S. Since I just ran across the guideline, I may quote from WP:LISTN: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable.--Assayer (talk) 14:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to Neratovice. The subject of these stones in this particular town isn't notable. List them at the article about the town and then have a discussion about how UNDUE this coverage would be and delete, accordingly. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 22:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please consider WP:DETAIL: Wikipedia serves the users of macropædia, micropædia, and the concise version in the same encyclopedia. Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs. Thus for readers who need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic full-sized separate subarticles such as this one can be warranted. Besides, Wikipedia is not constrained by the limitations of traditional encyclopedias, particularly size. --Assayer (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't mean that we should list the details of 52,000 (and counting) generally non notable individuals over a long, long series of lists. Subarticles are warranted in cases where you would expect the information to be covered, but the amount of information is too much to have it all in one article (e.g. splitting of the discography of notable artists from the article on that artist). Subarticles are not an excuse to have masive amounts of information on non-notable subjects because the parent subject (in this case, Stolpersteine) is notable. Fram (talk) 14:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are once again addressing the issue of notability which is different from the issue of details. As I said earlier, Wikipedia features lists of thousands of generally non notable individuals. Wikipedia articles and lists also feature details to a degree which appeals only to specialists. How do you know that the Stolpersteine is a case where such information as it is featured in those lists is not expected? Stolpersteine are basically plates in the public space featuring individual names and basic life dates. The whole idea behind the project is that people stumble upon the names of these individuals. If you want to learn more about these individuals you will find that their individual life stories have often been resarched and have received significant coverage in reliable sources. For example, through its Landeszentrale für politische Bildung the City of Hamburg has published a series of biographies for individuals commemorated by Stolpersteine in their individual boroughs and quarters. They have put together city tours stopping at various Stolpersteine to exemplify the history of Jewish and homosexual life in Hamburg through individual biographies. Since the Hamburg project noticed increased access to their international website, they have started to have these biographies translated into English, sponsored by the Hermann Reemtsma Foundation.--Assayer (talk) 17:35, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. In my opinion, the arguments put forward by Assayer are valid, which is why I am clearly in favor for keep the article / liste . I would add that English is the only language that is understood by almost everyone. It would be counterproductive and not in the sense of our encyclopedia to remove such a list from English-language Wikipedia. -- Miraki (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have detailed lists about many things, why not this? List of deaths at the Berlin Wall comes to mind. It doesn't matter if the victims are individually "notable", - their death in European history is. I like it broken up to a town, not a big list for a country, but I don't support merge to the town, as too much detail for the town. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:01, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. The creator, Deming, has an article. It's quite normal for his more notable works to have an article. The works of hundreds if not thousands of other artists have their own works. Furthermore, whether or not the names are there in a list should be a non issue. Agree with Assayer. Pumpkin Sky   talk  11:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge lead to Neratovice. The detail of the people listed does not belong in WP.  The present article is being used as a forum for bios of people who were not notable: we cannot have articles on each of the several million people who died in Nazi concentration camps.  There are presumably specialist websites for that.  We have similarly been deleting articles on German soldiers who got medals.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * This is not discussion about stand alone articles for millions of victims, but about victims commemorated by Stolpersteine. And if those people would have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, they would meet GNG regardless of their number. To my knowledge some articles of German soldiers who got medals but did not receive significant coverage in reliable sources have been merged into lists.--Assayer (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, topic appears adequate for a list article such as this.  Montanabw (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep – Stand-alone lists gives us good guidance on content of stand-alone lists: "Some Wikipedians feel that some topics are unsuitable by virtue of the nature of the topic. Following the policy spelled out in What Wikipedia is not, they feel that some topics are trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge." The nominator is entitled to their opinion along those lines, but I will disagree: a reading of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (the relevant section of WP:NOT) spells out seven classes of directories that Wikipedia is not: Lists of loosely associated topics; Genealogical entries; Yellow Pages; Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business; Sales catalogues; Non-encyclopedic cross-categorisations; and Simple listings without context information. There is no way that the list of Stolpersteine in Neratovice fits any of those groupings. In fact, it is clear from reading the amplifications given with each of those classes that NOTDIRECTORY excludes a very different sort of list from the one under debate. I would urge anyone uncertain about the place of this article in Wikipedia to read WP:NOTDIRECTORY  and see for themselves that is not an applicable rationale for deletion here. --RexxS (talk) 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, harmless, well-sourced, and has a non-negative encyclopedic value. I can't say any of that about most of the articles I see in the New Pages Feed. Rentier (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2017 (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.