Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Expulsion of Germans after World War II
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 29 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.Revision as of 14:13, 29 March 2022 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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: no valid reason for deletion provided. AFD is not for content disputes. MaxSem 14:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Expulsion of Germans after World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Explained in the "Proposed deletion of this article" section on the article talk page Ackoz 05:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Definately notable, but that's not the issue. The main reasoning was "to start the page from scratch." However, deletion and then a restart is not the greatest solution, as you'll have people quabbling over how to start it again. I suggest starting a new page from scratch on a user subpage, then negotiation, and then finally implementation when protection is lifted. bibliomaniac15 05:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This will lead to a lame edit war. The article has been protected for quite a while now and notability is not the issue here. The reason is to restart both the article and its editors. Ackoz 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- And what exactly would magically prevent these current editors from latching onto the new article? --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have already started a user subpage a while ago as a sort of sandbox. user:Jadger/draft_expulsions--Jadger 07:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And what exactly would magically prevent these current editors from latching onto the new article? --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This will lead to a lame edit war. The article has been protected for quite a while now and notability is not the issue here. The reason is to restart both the article and its editors. Ackoz 05:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Notable, and it would be preferential to have placed the reasoning as a brand-new entry on the talk page, rather than requiring a scan of the entire TOC. I don't doubt that this is a problematic article, but I think mediation would probably be a better avenue. --Action Jackson IV 05:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep An edit war doesn't mean the article should be deleted. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 06:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep I can't find any explanation for this deletion on the talk page. Review Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Problem articles where deletion may not be needed. --Selket Talk 06:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The other possibility is to divide the article into expulsions from particular countries, but that might just result in more but better-focused edit wars.DGG 06:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Call for Speedy close as AFD is not for content disputes. -- Dhartung | Talk 06:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above reasons and agree with Dhartung that a Speedy close is in order. --Richard 06:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per above--Jadger 07:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep- per above Astrotrain 09:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep as no deletion reason is offered. AfD is not to sort out content disputes. - Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep im in agreement with people above on this. Its well written and having read it and learnt somethign from it, its exactly what an encyclopedia is all about. --PrincessBrat 11:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep endless dispution about the content is not reason for deletion. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 12:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.