Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fontainebleau Memorandum

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. Sr13 09:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fontainebleau Memorandum

Fontainebleau Memorandum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The subject itself may be something worthy of an article, but this is not written in an encyclopedic way which explains it. fraggle 01:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete unless properly sourced by end of AFD. This is an interesting sidebar but I'm not sure it's much more than that, i.e. content that belongs in a brief form in another article. The document has its significance but wasn't influential, and the article is barely worth stubifying. --Dhartung | Talk 03:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The content of this article seems unsalvagable, however notable the subject might be. Not that it actually asserts said notability anyway. Someguy1221 04:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, agree with those above me, while its certainly interesting, this memo isn't notable on its own. Lankiveil 10:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete — Per above. ~ Magnus animuM ^{Brain Freeze!} 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Somebody's awful angry about something. --Infrangible 02:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Do we agree that the Memorandum correctly predicted a disaster for us all if the new nations mistreated their irredenta? Do we agree that the source of the Memorandum is cited, as are the two documents giving reports of that mistreatment? Should readers of the Memorandum also have documents that prove its worth? The British document is primary. The American Mercury is reputable. Does anyone out there assert the documents to be invalid? Or that a disaster didn't come when the Memorandum was ignored? Should people have easy access to this informaton?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jn25b (talk • contribs)

• Comment. The Mercury article is about events in Czeckoslovakia. While these petain to the memorandum, the Mercury article never actually mentions the memorandum, so it does not verify its notability at all. Further, the only remotely salvagable material in the article is the fact that Lloyd-George predicted a new war would occur, this is only notable if it itself received some form of direct coverage in the media, either then or now. No evidence of this has been provided, and it's not even mentioned on George's own article. Someguy1221 09:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The Mercury article supports the Foreign Affairs article, and both tell us that Lloyd-George tried to keep his grandsons alive. For what purpose would either of them need to reference the Memorandum? The Memorandum, together with those articles, tell us that the politicians were either incompetant or evil or both. This is proved by counting the dead, and the girls who grew old sleeping alone and died without issue.

• Comment. Without a reference that actually discusses the memorandum all you're proving here is WP:OR. Someguy1221 05:45, 15 May 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.