Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tank monument

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 no consensus. Merger discussions can and should continue elsewhere, but there's no consensus here for any course of action. Courcelles 01:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tank monument

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is essentially a dictionary definition bordering on tautology. Although I coild find many instances of tank monuments, I am unable to find significant coverage about this type of monument. Whpq (talk) 12:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Our WP:DICDEF explains the issue "One perennial source of confusion is that a stub encyclopedia article looks very much like a stub dictionary entry, and stubs are often poorly written. Another perennial source of confusion is that some paper dictionaries, such as "pocket" dictionaries, lead editors to the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent.". That's what we have here - a short stub. I found it easy to expand and have made a start. See WP:IMPERFECT. Warden (talk) 13:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what your expansion changes. The article now contains the self explanatory definition of the term and then a few examples, with no discussion of the greater topic outside of listing examples.--Yaksar (let's chat) 07:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are certainly tank monuments, but I can't see how this can become more than a dicdef combined with an example farm. There are also many monuments with statues of horses or wreaths, but without significant coverage of tank monuments in general (and not of just individual ones that have tanks) this does not need an article. That being said, it could potentially exist as a logical merge and redirect to an article on monuments or war monuments.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:30, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no significant coverage of them that I can find. Alternatively, merge and redirect to War memorial#Types. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - while we would probably need something more substantive by way of sources, this document explains what they are and how they come to be. We would have to be careful what we conclude from a document that is effectively a primary source but the aim of posting here was more to give some context to the discussion. In Australia we seem to refer to them as Tank memorials so if the article is kept then perhaps Tank memorial could be redirected there too. I wouldn't strongly object to a merge to War memorial#Types but I think the type of memorial is worth explaining in its own right. Stalwart111 04:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me if I'm incorrect, but the source you've linked does not seem to address the topic of tank memorials in general but rather discusses a specific proposed memorial with a tank.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're spot on. It's about a particular proposal but the report goes into some of the context and history. But it was not designed to be a commentary on these memorials generally - it only gives that context because Councillors being asked to consider the proposal need to understand it. As I said - not a great source, just some context for this discussion. Stalwart111 06:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The expansion of the article with a list of examples of tank monuments does not address the reason for deletion that this type of monument has not received coverage in independent reliable sources. The primary source listed above also really fails to address this adequately. The material or items selected for a monument often are related to what is being memorialised. The selection of a tank for a military monument is thus unsurprising. What makes the tank a distinct and substantial sub-topic of monuments? -- Whpq (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Individual tanks that have been displayed as memorials may well be notable (e.g. the Tank No.23). The general topic of use of tanks as war memorials? A worthy topic, but I am not sure how it could be expanded. Perhaps the best course of action would be a merge to War memorial and tank. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thin article, thin topic. Mention under war memorial would indeed suffice.Truth or consequences-2 (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley (public) _talk 00:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete But give the info in both tank and war memorial. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have just done a bit of research, and there is at least one book on Tank Monuments, and many articles. I think if someone had the time they could beef this up (certainly at the moment it is too thin) and make an interesting article. Seems, from quick scanning, quite a lot of aspects of tank monuments - moving them, insurance, what they represent, locals getting annoyed. Interestingly, the article "Azaryahu, Maoz - FROM REMAINS TO RELICS: AUTHENTIC MONUMENTS IN THE ISRAELI LANDSCAPE" discusses tanks destroyed and remaining on the battlefield, that have become monuments (as opposed to ones that are moved into a park near an RSL/veterans club. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. So I just looked through this article on JStor, and while it is certainly interesting, it is certainly not a book on tank monuments. It seems to suffer from the same issues as the other sources mentioned: it doesn't discuss the concept of tank monuments outside of the Degania monument. The details you mentioned all seem to be about this specific tank, not about tank monuments in general.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until the concept's notability is established. A lot has been written about the Oklahoma City Memorial, but that doesn't mean that Empty chair monuments is a notable topic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Empty chair monuments is not a notable topic because, to my knowledge, the Oklahoma City Memorial is the only notable monument of that type. There are a great many instances of lone tanks being used as monuments, and the fact that so many people across many cultures would create the same monument bears some form of mention. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hey everyone, I was just doing some searching again and I'm still struggling to find sources that discuss the topic as a whole rather than specific cases of monuments with tanks. If found such coverage would probably be enough to change the !votes of a few voters, myself included. The sources people have given so far don't seem to fit this, but I'm just one person so I wanted to see if anyone else came to the same conclusion on them? Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:13, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, it does look like the majority of !voters here are in favor of some sort of merge of information to the main memorial article, so maybe a consensus is emerging here regardless.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can only speak for myself, but I would !vote keep in a heartbeat if such hypothetical sources were to surface. As is, I'm saying merge, but I'd much rather see a stand-alone article. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 07:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge for now into war memorial. Clearly a searchable topic, but virtualy no generic information, so the article is hardly expandanble beyond a list of tank monuments. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article can certainly be expanded with verified examples (I have added a couple myself) so I would favour keeping it. However, I understand the point that no one has found substantial coverage of the topic. Now, I feel that encyclopedias are here to expand our minds and not constrict them so I have no sympathy at all with a "delete" of pertinent, referenced, curated information. On the other hand, it is not good to have a plethora of snippity articles so a merge may indeed be attractive. My difficulty in this case is practical. Merging with war memorial would leave that article unbalanced; merging with tank I can't see working at all; merging with gate guardian would be absolutely fine except this article does not yet have an example! (Though Fort Knox could help out). WP:GNG is a guideline and only says what is presumed notable and not what is required by policy for an article's existence. In this case I think it best to allow the article to continue. Thincat (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that a merge with war memorial would leave it too unbalanced, since we would merge the definition but not the entire list of examples. We would only need to emphasize memorials that themselves are notable, and not just memorials to notable events.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I would like to preserve and extend the present substantive information, not remove it. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to War memorial#Types. I have no doubts as to the topic's notability, but I feel with the current dearth of generic information on the subject there's no need for a stand-alone article. That said, I think the topic as a whole does merit an article; if some one were to add detailed and reliably sourced generic information (as opposed to more example farming) then I would much rather see this article kept. Angrysockhop ^{(talk to me)} 06:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Gate guardian for those that are not actual war memorials. MilborneOne (talk) 20:11, 14 December 2012 (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.