Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed

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. - Mailer Diablo 05:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Auschwitz wasn't bombed[edit]

This is not a topic for an encyclopedia article, phrased as a question. consider incorporating in auschwitz article or elsewhere Fourdee 06:01, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Merge: this is a well written, sourced article. The title is glaringly bad, but the content is good. --Daniel Olsen 06:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well written, notable work in progress. Guy Montag 21:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's going to be written up properly, which it isn't at the moment, and it'll be too long to merge anywhere by the time it's finished, because it's a big topic. As for the topic, it's encyclopedic enough for the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has an article called "Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" by Michael Berenbaum. [1] If the nominator had read our article before nominating it, he'd have seen we use that as a source. And ours isn't phrased as a question. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This link is not a proper Britannica article, it's a "sidebar". I have no idea where it would appear in a print version of the Britannica, under W for Why? The title sets a very bad precedent for wikipedia. The topic itself is dubious; the title is atrocious. Are we to entertain an article for every hypothetical what-if out there? This merits a paragraph in the Auschwitz or Holocaust articles, or rolling it into a more encyclopedic topic like Allied Response to the Holocaust. If we have this article, why not "Why Dachau Wasn't Bombed" etc. etc. etc. - "Why snoopy isn't drawn like Mickey Mouse" or how about "Why the sky is blue". No article should start with "why". Fourdee 01:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know where you get the idea it's a "what if" article. It doesn't ask "what would have happened if Auschwitz had been bombed?". It's an article that will summarize the literature on why the Auschwitz wasn't bombed, and it wasn't, so there's nothing hypothetical about it. It's a big topic in Holocaust history, and therefore encyclopedic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why is Auschwitz significant and not the other camps? Shouldn't the topic of this be why no camps were bombed? This topic appearing in a *sidebar* of the Britannica does not lend credibility to it appearing as a main article here. We don't have the equivalent of a sidebar or sub-article, but I am positive this would never appear as a main article in the Britannica - again it would fall under W alphabetically which is ludicrous. Fourdee 03:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - We're here to reflect reliable published sources, and historians discuss why Auschwitz wasn't bombed for a number of reasons: (1) the Allies were asked to bomb it or the railway lines leading to it; (2) the numbers being killed there were known about — in May–July 1944, when the bombing discussions were at a height, 12,000 Jews a day were being taken to Auschwitz from Hungary alone; (3) the railway lines would have been easy to bomb, according to some historians; (4) there were a number of Allied sorties in that immediate area during that period. I don't know what you mean by a "sidebar." It's a full article in the Encyclopaedia Britannica by Michael Berenbaum. How can you be "positive it would never appear as a main article," when in fact it does? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Check the Britannica link again. It is clearly described as a "sidebar". If you've ever seen a print version of the EB, it is listed in alphabetical order. I don't believe you will find anything listed under "Why". In a similar vein, "Why did Germany Start World War II", "Why did Hitler invade Russia", "Why did the US delay entering the War" - these are a "big topics" - bigger topics than why Auschwitz wasn't bombed, yet they are included in appropriately titled articles. Why does Auschwitz get an article about why it wasn't bombed and not Dachau? I repeat, no article should start with "why" and no article should include a contraction like "wasn't" - articles titles should reflect a succinct topic, not a sentence.Fourdee 03:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the point of this; if you have a complaint about Britannica, you'll need to write to them. Their article is part of a series of articles called "Reflections on the Holocaust." It's listed under Auschwitz, question of bombing; and in the Reflections series, it's in part III, one of the articles in the Allied response to the Holocaust section. But as I said, I'm unclear about the difference that makes. You seem to be objecting to the title; I hope you didn't bring an AfD just because you didn't like a title. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Still seems to be incomplete/a work in progress. Worth leaving it to see how it expands Bwithh 07:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the moment per those above. I'm not quite sure what it should be changed to, but the title should probably get changed somewhere along the line (I, for one, was expecting an essay rather than the article which is currently there). BigHaz - Schreit mich an (Review me) 07:26, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Why wasn't Auschwitz bombed?" is a big question in Holocaust history, which is why the EB has that article. I wanted to name it using the question, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica was able to do, but didn't because I anticipated precisely this problem. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but consider renaming. Perhaps Theories on why Auschwitz wasn't bombed. VegaDark 07:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also keep the article's name per comment above concerning Encyclopaedia Britannica. This is how it is most known and is per wikipedia policy. Amoruso 09:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is a significant historical controversy, with plenty of potential sources. I am surprised that it does not have an article yet. One thing though: as I say on the talk page, I would suggest a move to Auschwitz bombing controversy; or, at the very least, to Why Auschwitz was not bombed. The "wasn't" in the title is, in the words of Hannibal Lecter, unspeakably ugly to me. Batmanand | Talk 09:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Unspeakably ugly... Well said. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well writen. its just the title which lets it down. L e idi ot 10:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - soundly produced and presented article. BTLizard 11:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is encyclopedic material on this topic. --Ian Pitchford 12:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the Encyclopaedia Britannica. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very encycloedic, will be helpful to researchers, and per others above. Th ε Halo ^Θ 14:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and VegaDark's suggestion. --Hús ö nd 18:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep....no question to that, for all above reasons, but I also agree (in fact, urge) that the title should be changed to something a little more "encyclopedic". TJ0513 21:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Auschwitz bombing debate. There are other acceptable alternatives suggested by other editors as well, but this is the version that I would prefer. Auschwitz bombing controversy for a second choice per Batmanand. Irongargoyle 23:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:28, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is question for military historians, specialists on logistics and What If fans. Encyclopedias do not contain What if Turks won battle of Lepanto stuff. This topic has been discussed several times on soc.history.what-if newsgroups on much higher quality that the text here. It is also not controversy, unless "controversy" became generic word for just anything. Pavel Vozenilek 02:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I do agree that the word conflict is a bit harsh. This is why I prefer the alternate title of Auschwitz bombing debate. I still think we should keep though. Questions for military historians seem like the peak of encyclopedic matierial. I can't speak concerning your example of What if Turks won battle of Lepanto because I don't know the topic, but I think the question aspect of that hypothetical article is what would get it in trouble. Irongargoyle 04:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I don't see what this has to do with a "what if" by the way. Amoruso 04:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - What-if speculations are the primary inspiration for such question. Political charges are secondary. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I had read through several discussions about this topic on soc.history.what-if and the question has been researched in deep there, including technical details on logistics, decision processes of militaries and statistics. These discussions are huge, last for weeks and (mostly) based on qualified sources. Current article would be torn apart very quickly. If kept the article should be renamed to remove the question, to include the whole machinery of concentration camps and their infrastructure (to bomb railways has been considered and rejected) and "expert attention needed" label put on it. Pavel Vozenilek 11:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move as per Irongarogyle and others. The article is sound, but the title is unencyclopedic. Lazybum 03:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the subject is most certainly notable enough for its own encyclopedia article.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the others that the title is inappropriate and, at the least, the article should be renamed. Raul654 18:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - work in progress, but should be retitled per Batmanand. Ergative rlt 22:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move Tell me to get back to work! 04:42, 13 September 2006 (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.