Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Working with the German occupiers of the Channel Islands


 * 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator with no !votes for deletion. (non-admin closure) &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  12:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Working with the German occupiers of the Channel Islands

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I don't think this warrants a separate article. Looks like a content fork of German occupation of the Channel Islands from a different view point. The Banner talk 10:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep
 * The article German occupation of the Channel Islands cannot possibly cover the activities of 100,000 people in a traumatic five year period. I have been creating sub articles, including Resistance in the German-occupied Channel Islands, Deportations from the German-occupied Channel Islands, German fortification of Guernsey, Fortifications of Alderney and Working with the German occupiers of the Channel Islands. What I have not got around to doing yet is to properly amend the main article to reflect the fact that it is a header article and provides a summary of the sub articles.


 * Specifically regarding Working with the German occupiers of the Channel Islands, there is a massive misunderstanding and simplification in the media, especially by authors who want to sell their books, with people claiming "collaboration" or "anti jewish" or looking at the law in hindsight, rather than understanding the much more complex issues that existed at the time. I have tried to cover all points of view, highlighting the good, bad and the ugly. This article is needed to explain these complex issues. I was asked by User talk:Brigade Piron to do an article on Collaboration in the German-occupied Channel Islands to complement the resistance article, however collaboration depends on what point of view one takes and I thought the title "collaboration" misleading as it was itself biased. The current title lets people decide themselves whether an act is collaboration, survival or something else.User:Ânes-pur-sàng (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This expansion of various articles concerned with the Channel Islands occupation is obviously a work in progress so maybe we should wait until it's complete and then judge it as a whole? Merging this (and the other 'forks') back into the main article would generate a very long article. Neiltonks (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename. This is certainly a notable topic, however the present name of the article is really awkward. This might be part of the objection. Skylark777 (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep this is actually pretty impressive work. It does need copyediting and a better name, though I'm having trouble coming up with an alternate title. The scope is indeed broader than "collaboration" and collaboration is very POVy.--Jahaza (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an appropriate level of detail although in the longer term we could aim for more. The current weak content of many Wikipedia articles should not be taken as a benchmark. Thincat (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging tagged Nick-D for comments. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Dat GuyTalkContribs 18:46, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep This is a highly viable and useful article which (appropriately) expands on the content in the higher-level German occupation of the Channel Islands article Nick-D (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * SNOWBALL KEEP Staszek Lem (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per Neiltonks, Jahaza, and Nick-D's reasoning. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per all the above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Okay, I withdraw the nomination and ask for a speedy close of this, as nominator. The Banner talk 11:21, 16 January 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.