Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Führer Headquarters

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 per consensus and added references (closed by non-admin) . RMHED (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Führer Headquarters

Führer Headquarters (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Mis-named, list oriented, fuzzy topic

• Delete This was created about six weeks ago. Aside from the lack of citations, errors and listings of locations which have nothing to do with the article topic (which could be fixed), the title is meaningless (I think the title itself is WP:OR) and does not conform to WP policy. Moreover, the article as defined is rather doomed to be a list, not an encyclopedic narrative and is so vague in concept as to encourage listing through original research any place AH spent the night as a "Fuehrer Headquarters." The article is already replete with all kinds of unencyclopedic trivia, much of it wholly out of context and some of it simply wrong. Lastly, the existence of this article has already upset the accuracy of other articles through wikilinking and adapting their text to its presence. There are other worries, which I think most editors will see straight off. Further note, for context, the editor who created this article hasn't made any edits to this wiki for a month. Gwen Gale 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep This article seems to be quite well-written. Presumably that's because it's based upon the references cited which are about this specific topic. Judging from the article's current excellent state, the proposers's fears seem to be groundless. If there are errors of detail then she should fix them or discuss them on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note the article has zero inline citations. Gwen Gale 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So add some if you feel the need. The article provides at least one authoritative reference and I see no reason to doubt its accuracy. I'm watching the page now as I'm interested in WW2 history and can protect it from vandals and axe-grinders. Colonel Warden 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Its lack of citations is only a symptom. The very name of this article is both WP:OR and an invitation to create a misleading information dump with no historical context. Gwen Gale 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. The name seems to be a straightforward translation of the German term for the official HQs being built for Hitler and works for me in English. The article states that there was a list of 20 of these planned and so this nicely limits the scope-creep that you fear. Colonel Warden 09:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The scope creep (as you put it) is already evident in the article. Moreover, the Kehlsteinhaus, which is pictured in the article, was most definitely not a German military headquarters, it was a retreat above his house and he rarely even went there. Gwen Gale 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kehlsteinhaus is associated with the Berghof and the two are listed together. It would be absurd to omit this complex from the article. If you don't like the exact presentation then you are free to edit it. WP:NOEFFORT is not a reason to delete and AFD is not cleanup. Your proposal seems an unnecessary overreaction to an editing dispute. Colonel Warden 10:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The Kehlsteinhaus was never a military headquarters, nor was it built as one but the article represents it separately as a military headquarters. This could be fixed (as I've mentioned already above) but it's is a symptom of the article's deep conceptual flaws. Gwen Gale 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Like Adolf, I tire of this nest. :) My opinion stands. Colonel Warden 10:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The article does not appear to be irretrievably broken. I agree that it needs to be cleaned up, but since there has been a fair amount of activity, I would at least tag it for sourcing and clean up. In fact, since it doesn't seem to have been done previously I'll do ahead and do that now. If it still doesn't improve we could always reconsider it. Perhaps one of the projects wants it? Xymmax 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There has not been a "fair amount of activity." The editor who created it six weeks ago hasn't touched it in five weeks. There has been no meaningful interest from other editors. The only edits by others have been a typo fix, a tag and the tag for this AfD. Gwen Gale 14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep: (I started and wrote the article). Sorry, Gwen Gale, but your concerns do very much confuse me;

1. Lack of citations - this can be fixed and I will do so.
2. Errors - where? what? Please describe the errors you claim are present.
3. Listings of locations which have nothing to do with the article topic. What? Que? Are you serious?
4. The title is meaningless - sorry, that's bs. The title and article scope describes the concept of FHQ:s which are historical facts which certainly has encyclopedic value. The FHQ:s were special, not just where "Hitler spent the night".
5. Original research/breach of WP policy - sorry, that's bs too. The article information is based on the references listed, and I have not personally invented anything. Furthermore, there are similar articles in the German and Polish Wikipedia here: Führerhauptquartier (German) and Führerhauptquartier (Polish).
6. Vague in concept - sorry, you're misinformed or ignorant. Consult history books, the references listed or the wikipedia links above.

If you're still concerned with contents, please constribute and help out with the article. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Calling my remarks "bs" is wholly unacceptable and does not speak helpfully for your edits. Gwen Gale 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to live with it, since I found the claims to be bs. After all, Wikipolicy allows me to comment on opinions, and I chose to do so - there was no personal attack intended - don't take any offense. I have added 4 citations in 4 important places, and removed the "sources" tag, "OR" tag (since it's bs) and the cleanup tag, as I fail to see what cleanup is needed. But please challenge me on this if you feel like it. When I wrote the article I thought it through and researched it as thorough as possible - that's why I haven't added anything since then. As the article states there were about 14 (20 planned) headquarters, so no need to fear that the list will expand significantly in the future. My regards, --Dna-Dennis 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy does not allow you to characterize edits of others with an acronym for bullshit. Unhappily, this must end my conversation with you for now. Gwen Gale 15:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Flies through all relevant policies and guidelines. If only all six week old articles were as good as this one! Phil Bridger 15:45, 4 December 2007 (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.