Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/German Soldier's House

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 move to Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany Arkyan • (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] German Soldier's House

  • Delete Nonstandard Term
    • Personal research (i.e. Asking a relative who fought in WW2) seems to indicate that the Term "Soldatenhäuser" was never in use in Germany for institutions as described in the article.
    • Google only points to WP clones for either "German Soldier's House" or "Deutsches Soldatenhaus".
    • Yad Vashem's database does not know any such institutions.
    • References point to literature that is at least controversial in matters of historic correctness.

--Hohenberg 12:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak delete as I'm willing to accept the sources but I'm not sure this is a notable name (at least, it isn't recorded widely). It is well known that the Wehrmacht was obsessed with STDs and operated its own brothel system but in France apparently they usually took over existing brothels, checked the women for disease, and then made them exclusively for the troops. That doesn't jibe with this story. They may have been part of this system, but better we have a full article on the cooptation of prostitution than this stub. --Dhartung | Talk 17:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Vote changed to Keep, but please move to a more appropriate name such as Forced prostitution in Nazi Germany. This wants to be a general article but it has the name of a small aspect of the thing. --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Weak keep For background, see The House of Dolls. However, though this name has been used, I do not think it necessarily was the standard name; I agree there should be a stronger article on the more general subject, but I think this is a suitable start. Hohenberg, what does your personal source indicate was the name used? DGG
The House of Dolls is literature, not a source which encyclopaedic articles should be based on... --Hohenberg 10:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete an anti-German attack article, solely to slander German WWII veterans. incredibly POV and is absolutely unreferenceable, this seems to be made up.--Jadger 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - the article could do with more sources and ATM I can't dig out more. I wrote it as a stub and stub it is, but it definitely is an encyclopaedic material. As to specific arguments listed above: original research is not the best way to confirm or deny anything in WP; Yad Vashem might not have anything about it since it doesn't seem related to the Holocaust; references are references, like them or not. Do we have any references disputing the ones we have? If not, the claim that such a thing did not exist would have to be proven first. Finally, as to Jadger's arguments - well, not every Nazi WWII crime was committed to slander Germans after WWII. The Nazis did not kill millions of people and rob millions of others to make them more prone to anti-German sentiments. And, contrary to what Jadger states, there are at least two sources cited in the article and two additional at the talk page. If four sources make an article "unreferenceable", then how many would do? //Halibutt 20:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • On a second thought - I'd change my vote to strong keep. So far we have four sources, more will follow. That's more than enough for a tiny stub. //Halibutt
if you will look on the talk page, you will notice that those "references" are highly doubtful. --Jadger 06:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
if you will look at the article, you notice that I added plenty more. //Halibutt 10:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
the two that are unreliable still are the only ones that back up the controversial points that are under contention. --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Not any more. //Halibutt
  • I started a rename discussion at the talk page, feel free to join it. //Halibutt
  • Keep and rename. Organized (and sometimes forced) prostitution for German soldiers and Nazis seems to be a real phenomenon. --Ioannes Pragensis 12:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC) Changed vote to no opinion.--Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
where do you get this idea from? this is the only article on wikipedia that states such a thing, and the cited books in question are more questionable than David Irving's work --Jadger 16:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
A good question. I have no sources available here and it is possible that it were only rumors/half-truths. Nevertheless the question of war prostitution deserves an article, of course a well sourced article, possibily stating that there were nothing like this. I am only not sure whether to keep this article and rewrite it or to start from scratch. Therefore neutral vote. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, Jadger is wrong. There is a plethora of sources now and not only the two Jadger mentioned. //Halibutt
then why have none been cited? there are new citations added, but they do not cite anything on the supposed German soldier's houses, but cite things mentioned in this article that link to the relevant article to those. --Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
The documentary (cited) even uses the name (or in fact uses two names: Deutsches Soldatenhaus and Deutsches Soldatenheim). //Halibutt 09:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
that is highly doubtful, and please move this to the discussion page as I have done.--Jadger 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As it is written and "titled", it is nonsense. Dr. Dan 14:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. A notable topic, not unlike comfort women. Questions about references should be resolved on talk. Appleseed (Talk) 01:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
this isn't merely questions about references, it is questioning whether it actually existed or not.--Jadger 07:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
We have plenty of references that the phomenena was widespread, the only issue is what is the best name for it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and possibly rename: Several references look trustworthy (e.g. Instytut Pamieci Narodowej and german sources). Name looks like an off-the-cuff translation, though. Barring better ideas in english, the raw German term is much preferable. Deuar 18:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
you do realise the Instytut Pamieci Narodowej is often criticized as a political weapon used in modern Polish political witch-hunts?--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree that the best name would be the German term. It makes it clear that it was the Germans who gave it that innocuous-sounding name. DGG 19:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
There was no standard German term, there is no evidence that they actually existed in as much organization is claimed in the article.--Jadger 07:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, possibly rename: Looks notable and reasonably well-referenced. The title could be problematic, though. Biruitorul 16:54, 5 April 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.