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 delete. Tone 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation symbols

[edit]
Occupation symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a WP:Coatrack and pure WP:Synthesis. Nowhere is the topic of "Occupation symbols", referring to the legal status of swastika and the hammer and sickle and others such as the old Soviet Republic flags, analyzed as a topic by secondary sources, making it not notable as well. Article was created by User:Digwuren who has been banned for one year due to the EEML case, which I had managed to ignore until now. The term in Estonian is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, should anybody want to check for secondary sources by that. Anyway, deprodded by User:Sander Säde with the edit summary "rm prod, nonsense given as reason for prodding". Abductive (reasoning) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Okupatsioonisümbol" has only three Google News hits. The first two are articles about that statue that caused all that trouble, not about the term. The third is a blog. Okupatsioonisümbol has no Google Books or Scholar hits. This is consistent with my deletion argument that this term is not notable. Also, the article is a blatant coatrack, created for political or sentimental reasons, by a banned editor. I am unsure if all the prior contributions of an editor who was banned for less than eternity should be deleted under ((Db-g5)), but this one comes close. Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are getting too fixated on editor and not the content. Perhaps you would like to go through hundreds of articles created by also banned Piotrus (talk · contribs) and delete all his GA and FA articles, too? In any case, it took me five minutes to find plenty of sources. Newspaper articles in Estonian: [1], [2], [3], [4]. It is not hard to find English sources as well, providing one is willing to look. --Sander Säde 08:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we"? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and I and the rest of the Wikipedia community. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, I would not have an issue with an article about each specific law. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you had no problem finding sources is that the individual components of this article, the swastika and the hammer and sickle, are notable. The problem with this article is WP:Synthesis, which means that the topic is composed of parts which should not be brought together in the way the article does. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should not? Whence comes this "should not"? Please see the BBC source cited, for example, which opens, "Lithuania's parliament has passed the toughest restrictions anywhere in the former Soviet Union on the public display of Soviet and Nazi symbols. It will now be an offence in the Baltic state to display the images of Soviet and Nazi leaders. This includes flags, emblems and badges carrying insignia, such as the hammer and sickle or swastika." It is apparent from this reliable source that the Lithuanian parliament brings these symbols together for legal purposes. This and other good sources indicate that other countries treat the matter in a similar way. It us not for us to gainsay this - we just report the plain facts. This is not in any way synthetic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles on these topics. I find it to be a NPOV Coatrack, using Wikipedia to advance a particular interpretation of history in a WP:CFORK. The nazi and communist symbols are not generic "occupation symbols," that would be something more like one would see on propaganda posters depicting the jack-booted Huns from WWI, or nazi book-burnings, or cartoons of scallywags and carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. Doubtless you will add these to the article now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Abductive. Colonel Warden, you are correct that two symbols are being legislated against collectively. The overall logic that both items represent to Lithuanians symbols of forces that occupied Lithuania (or any other country concerned in this debate) is also correct. However, drawing these all together in an article called "Occupation symbols" is synthesis. The term "Occupation symbols" is extremely subjective, and from an encyclopedic point of of view would also include any symbol associated with any force that ever participated in anything considered an occupation by an organized group of people. In other words, if you're armed forces or police have ever taken action beyond your borders, someone probably considers them occupiers. In the case of this article, an incredibly broad term is narrowly focused on the symbols of just two actors in World War II.
Now, because there exists actual laws regarding fascist and Soviet symbols, articles about those specific laws would be entirely appropriate. Likewise, adding information within the articles of each symbol concerning laws that ban the symbol would also be entirely appropriate. The BBC source you keep citing is great, but it discusses the laws, not the concept of "Occupation Symbols". Hiberniantears (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are here to discuss the entirety of the article. The title is unimportant for this purpose as this may readily be changed by a move which is an ordinary edit not requiring deletion. The current title seems adequate for now, being a literal translation of the Estonian, okupatsioonisümbolite, as explained above. If there is any confusion in meaning then we may qualify or amend this as needed: "Prohibited symbols in Eastern Europe", for example. In any case, this is not a matter of synthesis but clarity. This is insufficient reason to delete. It seems that it is generally accepted that we have a valid topic here and the issue is one of presentation. AFD is not the correct forum for this - the matter should be adjourned to the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain why we should not have an article about "Baltic country legislation" when the BBC and other international news organisations have multiple substantial articles about this topic. Is your opinion perhaps connected with your advocacy of Russia per the Russian Barnstar of National Merit found on your user page? Your failure to declare your conflict of interest seems to be a breach of WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is enough to cover the bans of these symbols in their separate articles. The grouping of these symbols under the term "occupation symbols" is based on such an extremely weak criteria that this is not allowed per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policy. Offliner (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What separate articles? The passage of laws in multiple countries grouping these symbols together is not a weak criterion as their passage involved parliamentary discussion, media commentary and international debate, all of which provide numerous sources and so great notability. The topic could hardly be stronger. To suggest otherwise seems to be denialism. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the bans should be discussed in the separate symbol articles, such as Swastika, etc. Offliner (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, this will not do as it does not bring the matter together in the way that the laws and sources do. I have been studying the sources and currently have material for about 10 different articles but do not want to write these if they already exist. If this article is deleted then we will have articles about these laws in the various individual countries such as Estonia, Poland, Hungary, etc and notable cases such as the banning of the Stalinskaya trade mark, the appeal to the ECHR and so on. Per our editing policy, it seems best to develop the topic from this start and split as necessary but we can do it from the bottom up if needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. Our definition of synthesis states it as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ". There is no such synthetic conclusion here. The principle claim of the article is that countries in Eastern Europe, such as Estonia and Poland, prohibit display of the political symbols of the countries which occupied them during the 20th century. Do you dispute this fact which is reported by reliable sources? Do you assert that the article necessarily makes some sythetic claim beyond this statement of fact. Please explain the synthesis as, per WP:VAGUEWAVE, an assertion which not supported by any evidence is of little value. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (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.
More