Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villeneuve-Loubet mass grave

Add links
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 keep. Consensus is to keep the content. A discussion on the article's talk page may be held to determine how to proceed with the merge. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 00:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Villeneuve-Loubet mass grave[edit]

Villeneuve-Loubet mass grave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page documents the discovery of 14 dead Germans from WWII. Given the scale of European deaths from violence in the past 100 years, this discovery is not notable. Compare the 210 mass graves filled with a total of 30,000 to 225,000 corpses to be found at Bykivnia, Ukraine. This page should be deleted under WP:NPT#NEWS. Abductive (reasoning) 08:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think that the notability is in that the discovery was made more than forty years after World War II ended (2006), not in the number of people killed. Still, I would agree that it was just a 2006 news story. Mandsford 12:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, there should be some type of article about World War II casualties discovered long after the war has ended. It's difficult to envision what the title would be, and certainly it's not limited to Second World War. One could probably write a long article about bombs dropped during WW2 that killed people in the years since 1945. Mandsford 12:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Easily passes WP:N and its WP:GNG. I found more coverage, some of which was 2 years after the initial modern discovery. [1][2] Wikipedia is not paper. If thousands of topics pass our standards, then we can have thousands of articles. Just because another grave site has more bodies is not a valid reason to delete this article.--Oakshade (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not pass WP:NOT#NEWS. WP:NOT is a Policy, but WP:N is only a Guideline. A few local news stories about the process of exhuming the remains are still just news. Abductive (reasoning) 20:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. It's of historic value and originates from events from over half a century ago, not just an event and the coverage of the discovery alone spans at least two years, not just "one event." As you are getting all WikiLawyering on us, WP:NOTPAPER is also policy, not a guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 21:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your slippery slope fallacy prediction of articles on dud bombs is noted, but has nothing to do with the notability of this article. Your opinion that this is a "minor find" is noted too, but your personal opinion has nothing to do with the significant coverage lent do this topic. There's too much topic-specific content is this article to be merged into those different topic articles.--Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet. I feel this would be an excellent compromise between the notability of the discovery and the coverage it has recieved. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 12:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet as per Bahamut13. Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The relevant parts can be merged to another article as suggested above. Anotherclown (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Villeneuve-Loubet as above Nick-D (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOT NEWS is indeed a policy, but it needs to be interpreted. One of the differences between policy and guideline is that a guideline can be detailed, but a policy is necessarily in such broad terms that it leaves a wide range fro interpretation--in that sense, it's even more adaptable. (I make the analogy to the US constitution, which is certainly basic policy , but has been subject to such a wide range of interpretations as to permit or restrict almost anything, except for the most obvious cases.) I consider that this policy here is meant to include things like local robberies and fires and zoning discussions. Something of this magnitude from WWII does not fall under it. that there are even bigger similar events does not make this one non-notable. DGG ( talk ) 06:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A grave containing 14 Germans who appear to have been killed in fighting is also hardly of any significance to the war - it appears to be a minor battlefield graveyard that was forgotten about until it was re-found. Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 5 October 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Villeneuve-Loubet_mass_grave&oldid=1087613456"