- 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 per WP:SK#1. North America 1000 00:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Waffen-SS im Einsatz
- Waffen-SS im Einsatz ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given. Does not itself appear to have been the non-trivial subject of reliable, independent, secondary sources. KDS4444 Talk 06:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Comment: Please see google book search results for this book; this is a significant work in the realm of Waffen-SS historical revisionism and as a part of Waffen-SS in popular culture. It has been characterised by the historian Charles Sydnor as one of the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature." K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ K.e.coffman: I don't know what the matter is, but that Google Books link just gives me a plain Google search page waiting to have its search field filled. -- Thnidu ( talk) 06:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Thnidu: You could search for: "Waffen-SS im Einsatz" Hausser ; and then switch to Google Books tab.
- See for example this book being discussed in The SS: Alibi of a Nation by Gerald Reitlinger. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Coffman's link worked fine for me. Sam Sailor Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 00:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question: Is KDS4444 suggesting that Large is not mentioning subject? Sam Sailor Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. Often cited and described as a significant work in literature about Waffen-SS, e.g. George H. Stein (1984) writes, "Indeed, to my knowledge, there are only three works specifically devoted to the subject: the tendentious and superficial Waffen-SS im Einsatz (Göttingen, 1953) by former SS Oberstgruppenfiihrer (Colonel General) Paul Hausser ..." Sam Sailor Talk! 00:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep: as the article's creator. This is a significant work in the realm of Waffen-SS historical revisionism and has been characterised by the historian Charles Sydnor as one of the "most important works of [Waffen-SS] apologist literature." Multiple citations to WP:RS are included in the article. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- I have to question whether this is needed as a separate article. Wikipedia:CFORK question arises. Kierzek ( talk) 13:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
- The link to SS, the Alibi of a Nation, only mentions the book title in passing— it is not a link to a discussion of the book. However, if the subsequent quote from Stein is correct (we need a citation) then that would likely qualify the work as notable. Is that quote in the article yet? Also: the citation style used in this article does not include links to the works cited, only to their titles— this makes it very difficult to verify any given statement which is being cited, complicating the process. Inline citations should include URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced. Why this was not done in the first place signifies to me that either the author was not familiar with the process of using such citations or was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability. In either case, the whole business could be cleared up by adding in these URLs, yes? Lack of these doesn't mean the article should be deleted, it only means that its notability will no longer be open to question (which I am sure the original author would prefer in any case).
KDS4444 (
talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The content was built largely on print books. I am not aware of the requirement that the citations should include "
URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced
". That is why I did not quite understand the initial comment the nominator was making about "Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given
". I thought maybe they were not seeing any results is Google Books or Google Scholar, which I provided.
- Comment: The content was built largely on print books. I am not aware of the requirement that the citations should include "
- The link to SS, the Alibi of a Nation, only mentions the book title in passing— it is not a link to a discussion of the book. However, if the subsequent quote from Stein is correct (we need a citation) then that would likely qualify the work as notable. Is that quote in the article yet? Also: the citation style used in this article does not include links to the works cited, only to their titles— this makes it very difficult to verify any given statement which is being cited, complicating the process. Inline citations should include URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced. Why this was not done in the first place signifies to me that either the author was not familiar with the process of using such citations or was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability. In either case, the whole business could be cleared up by adding in these URLs, yes? Lack of these doesn't mean the article should be deleted, it only means that its notability will no longer be open to question (which I am sure the original author would prefer in any case).
KDS4444 (
talk) 07:48, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I’m not sure how to respond to the nom’s suggestion that the “
author (…) was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability
”. Should I defend my integrity as an editor? Search for the where this content could be found online? I find this assumption of bad faith from a fellow editor to be odd and specious. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:16, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
- I’m not sure how to respond to the nom’s suggestion that the “
Comment. In his nomination, nom claims that Book title does not even appear in the first three citations given.
. At the time of nomination the article looked like this. So does nom mean, that Large does not mention subject when he says "first three citations"? Or does he mean that neither Large, Wilke, nor MacKenzie mention subject? It does not really matter, since all three do mention subject. In other words, nom have not vetted the references before opening this discussion.
- Why not? The answer is given in his comment above (
diff)
The citation style used in this article does not include links to the works cited, only to their titles— this makes it very difficult to verify any given statement which is being cited, complicating the process.
Wrong. The citation style used is shortened footnotes, but clicking on an inline ref link takes you to the list of citations from where you have to go to the bibliography list. This failure is identical to nom's failure in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneva Manifesto. It is not "difficult to verify any given statement", it is easy. It does take a minimum of understanding for referencing. - Nom also says that
However, if the subsequent quote from Stein is correct (we need a citation) then that would likely qualify the work as notable. Is that quote in the article yet?
Stein is already in the bibliography list, a direct citation and/or quote is not what makes or breaks subject meeting GNG. Inline citations should include URLs to the exact place on the Internet (if possible) being referenced.
And most of them do, but nom demonstrates that he does not actually follow them. Besides, there is no demand that sources are available online, see Wikipedia:Sourceaccess.- The worst mistake of all is, that nom in an assumed belief in his own abilities comments that
Why this was not done in the first place signifies to me that either the author was not familiar with the process of using such citations or was perhaps deliberately obfuscating the references to conceal lack of notability.
Pardon me, K.e.coffman's content contributions including referencing are admirable; it is nom who thinks he is right, and when he fails to connect the dots and acknowledge where he goes wrong, he then blame shifts. Sad mistake, strictly speaking a serious personal attack. Unwittingly or not. - Considering how one banal mistake after the other is stacking up here, my suggestion to nom is to strike the above comment regarding K.e.coffman and withdraw the nomination by adding
* {{Withdraw}}. ~~~~here below. Sam Sailor Talk! 11:26, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Request withdrawn. Having said that, the ad hominem attacks which have followed the nomination have been mean and insulting. I have been slandered here without cause. I asked for information and had it thrown in my face. None of that was necessary. I understand referencing. I also understand that it is often misused. Surely the others in this conversation understand that as well. Sorting through new pages and nominating some for deletion is difficult, and people make mistakes. I make mistakes. I am now satisfied that the subject is notable. I do not feel compelled to address the other accusations being placed here— they are snide.
KDS4444 (
talk) 22:12, 10 May 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.