Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Haw-Haw

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 speedy keep. Bakazaka's analysis is compelling and the nomination is getting no traction with other editors. Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 20:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Haw-Haw[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Lord Haw-Haw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I redirected the page to William Joyce, since this is a duplicate of that article. Another editor removed the redirect with the edit summary “There was a clear consensus on the Talk page NOT to merge the articles.” First of all, a redirect and a merge are not the same thing. Second, I have issues with consensus on talk pages. Personally, I see no reason for duplicate articles with different titles. MensanDeltiologist (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (or rather, I oppose the proposed redirect)- Lord Haw-Haw and William Joyce are not duplicate articles. The former is about the nickname given to several radio broadcasters. Although the nickname is most widely associated with Joyce (but did not originate with him), the article's cited reference does verify that it is associated with other broadcasters too, two of whom are notable in their own right (or at least have their own standalone articles on Wikipedia). Bennv3771 (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The WP comparison tool does show a lot of difference in the articles (Lord Haw-Haw vs. William Joyce) so they are a long way from being duplicates. On that basis, I am not sure that AfD is the right forum for getting a merge of two seperate, fully referernced, notable articles? However, I'm not sure I fully agree with the split, although both names are highly notable (Load Haw-Haw even more so), so I could argue eitherway; the Talk Page consensus was based on a small group? Britishfinance (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The articles are clearly not duplicates. This article is about the ironic title "Lord Haw Haw", and the several people who were described this way. The article on William Joyce is about one of these people. The contents are very different, and there is very little common content or overlap. A redirect or deletion would therefore lose much useful material which is in this article. I wonder whether the proposer has actually read and compared both articles, since it is difficult to see how anyone can consider them to be duplicates. RolandR (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (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/Lord_Haw-Haw&oldid=1148294198"