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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Territorial changes of Germany after World War II

[edit]

Content fork of Territorial_changes_of_Germany#Territorial_changes_within_1937_Boundary_after_World_War_II, Former eastern territories of Germany and Oder Neisse line Skäpperöd (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand the nominator's reasoning but I find the nomination reason is not fully convincing. Being a content fork is not a clear reason to delete IF it can be argued that the fork is a subsidiary article of a main article. However, at the moment, the nominated article does not differ from the section in Territorial changes of Germany except for an additional section on postwar politics. Any discussion about deletion should focus on whether there is value in expanding Territorial changes of Germany after World War II and summarizing the section in Territorial changes of Germany. The main reason to have an article such as Territorial changes of Germany after World War II is because those changes are part of the entire period of history having to do with the conclusion of WWII and the beginning of the Cold War. Embedding this info with a broader article about Territorial changes of Germany is legitimate to provide historical context but a bit frustrating to the reader who wishes to focus specifically on the WWII/Cold War transition. --Richard (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "additional section on postwar politics" is a twin of Former_eastern_territories_of_Germany#Modern_status. Just this twin being less developed, as is the case with the whole article - actually my motivation was to nominate the least developed content fork, and this without questions happens to be this one. So the section you mentioned does not need to be concerned about, in the article there is absolutely nothing that could be merged into the more developed content fork.

I share your second concern, to have an article deleted "needed" as a subarticle of the main Territorial changes of Germany article. Yet with this article you won't do the main article a favor. The reader won't benefit if the supposed "main" subarticle is in fact a low developed content fork of what he just read in the respective main article section. With the editors focussing on the other articles listed above, I doubt this low developed state will change, and if it does, it still would be questionable if a higher developed content fork is needed at all. An approach for this problem could be to create an article by copy-paste from the post-45 subsection of the main article as it is now and rewrite the resp section of the main article in a summary style. Yet, this would only make sense if the resp section has a size worth these actions. The article now nominated for deletion would in this approach need to be completely rewritten either, so a deletion would not interfere with this. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this article doesn't really add anything at the moment, but it certainly could. There's a lot to be said here, and Germany has had its territory changed way too often and drastically to say everything in one article. For example, there's no mention of the Saar question in this article. It needs a rewrite, but it's not hurting anyone at the moment, I think. Weak keep - Revolving Bugbear 18:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this is a coherent thesis for an article, and it's not as if it duplicates a single article, or exists to give a different POV on the same material - it brings together information from three articles that readers may not otherwise find to make a coherent whole, and for that alone its existence is justified. Its a good nucleus that can be developed into something with content and flow different from its parent articles. I think it stands alone now and will only improve over time - our articles are never finished. If slight duplication is such a massive problem (and I don't see why in a non-paper encylopaedia) then this is probably the best place for the information, and some detail can be trimmed from the longer parent articles with a {main|} tag. Knepflerle (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, original research. Stifle (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Revolving Bugbear and Knepflerle. As for Stifle's "Original research" comment, I can't see how it is that and would ask that this characterization be explained as it is too easy to throw around words like "original research" without backing them up with an explication of what is meant. --Richard (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2008 (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.