Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Silesian Offensives

Add links
Source: 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. PhilKnight (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian Offensives

Silesian Offensives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Synthesys — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrg3105 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 5 August 2008

I have removed the sources because one does not mention either offensive while the other mentions them in list-form by name only. Essentially the article is a synthesis of the two earlier-edited separate articles. In that line of thinking all consecutive offensives can be grouped into one big European offensives of the Second World War or US Army campaigns in France, or Germany campaigns of World War II, however, that is why there are divisions in military history such as Theaters, Military campaigns, operations, etc. The offensives in question had completely different objectives, and although carried out by the same Front in same geographic area, one was directed south-west, while the other, directed north-west separated by the 120km section of front which was the Siege of Breslau. To even suggest that these operations were related means never having to have looked at a map--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm very confused by this nom. There doesn't appear to be a policy called WP:CWORK, or even WP:WORK. Furthermore, the article has references and appears notable by all standards (ignoring the fact that it is a battle in WWII). If the nominator could provide some more information, that would be helpful. Leonard(Bloom) 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure how this violates WP:CFORK, which is a guideline in any case; I wish Mrg3015 explained why this is so bad and what it is a fork of. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leonard^Bloom & Falcon Kirtaran, please note change in reason for deletion and of the removal of "references"--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Where is the need to have a summary stub for two operations linked only by the one word "Silesian" in the titles? The stub adds nothing, and the references are only generally related to the operations. Even on those rare occasions in military history when they are grouped, that is done with other relevant offensives, such as the East Pomeranian Strategic Offensive Operation, so one would have to rename it Silesian-East Pomeranian operations, etc. The grouping is rarely used even in specialised literature--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge- this article was formerly prodded, reasoning being The article badly summarises two other existing articles Lower Silesian Offensive Operation and Upper Silesian Offensive Operation to which it adds nothing, thereby being surplus to requirement. I agree. Reyk YO! 07:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault. Apparently I was not supposed to prod it. There is no material to merge into the two other articles because this article is a synthesis of them--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No grounds to delete the article, which casts useful light on strategic and political considerations in the European Theater in the final months of World War II. Nihil novi (talk) 08:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The citations and the idea about flanking should be merged into the other two articles, if true; I'd rather someone with knowledge of the topic merge facts here. I would, however, like to thank the person who gave us the full title of one of the books cited in the other two articles, instead of just the author's last name and a page number (which doesn't really identify a source in and of itself). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? The two references have almost nothing to do with the content of the article. Bevor mentions it briefly, while Glantz just names the operations in a list of other operations of 1945. The two operations have nothing in common other than the word "Silesia"!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: just a thought but it seems to me that the two sub-articles – covering Lower Silesia and Upper Silesia operations – are also fairly stubby. Merging them into this one would create a reasonably comprehensive article, which could be broken out again if and when it has been suitably expanded and, more importantly, referenced. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Roger, if you look at the history of the three articles, you will see the following
  • Silesian Offensives - 05:01, 17 June 2007 Piotrus (Talk | contribs) (2,018 bytes) (ref stub about another important offensive) The reference provided mentions the two only once each, with no context.
Where did Piotrus get the rest of the article from? Notably this

Stalin's decision to delay the push towards Berlin from February to April has been a subject of some controversy among both the Soviet generals and military historians, with one side arguing that the Soviets had a chance of securing Berlin much quicker and with much lower losses in February, and the other arguing that the danger of leaving large German formations on the flanks could have resulted in a succesfull German counterattack and prolonged the war further.

If there was such a controversy, no doubt a citation could have been provided.
Instead
  • 06:42, 19 March 2008 Eurocopter tigre adds "references" - Beevor's Berlin.
As it happens, Beevor doesn't mention either of the operations even once. What he does mention is "the defences of the Silesian capital, which Führer headquarters had declared to be `Fortress Breslau'"
Then ->

Why? Well because Piotrus was forever "tweaking" Danzig, and hence the East Pomeranian Offensive‎

  1. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
  2. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Siege of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig))
  3. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Talk:Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Talk:Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  4. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Sieges of Danzig‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  5. 04:22, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk)‎ (moved Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk) to Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig): battle is more common; and modern name is Gdańsk)
  6. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
  7. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdansk‎ (red)
  8. 04:21, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Gdańsk‎ (red)
  9. 04:20, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Sieges of Danzig‎
  10. 04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Battle of Danzig‎ (←Redirected page to Siege of Danzig (Gdańsk))
  11. 04:19, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Battle of Danzig‎ (red)
  12. 04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:East Prussian Offensive‎ (top) [rollback] [vandalism]
  13. 04:18, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:East Pomeranian Offensive‎ (update)
  14. 04:17, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) m Talk:Kaunas Offensive Operation‎
  15. 04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Upper Silesian Offensive Operation‎ (←Created page with '{{WPMILHIST|class=Start|German-task-force=yes|Russian-task-force=yes|WWII-task-force=yes}}')
  16. 04:16, 1 April 2008 (hist) (diff) Talk:Lower Silesian Offensive Operation‎
  • Immediately on my AfD 19:28, 5 August 2008 Nihil novi starts editing furiously (see his user page that says Categories: WikiProject Poland participants!)
I wonder if it had anything to do with the two operations being the time when the Oder-Niesse line was restored?
The unreferenced nature of edits, which in the case of Battle of Gdańsk (Danzig) caused it to disappear altogether as an operation does not warrant retention or any form of salvage of this article.
The articles with the full titles are not "sub-articles". Piotrus added "It was one of the two Silesian Offensives; the other one was the Upper Silesian Offensive Operation." and authored the stub, although there is not a shred of evidence they were linked other than geographically, and by virtue of being performed by same front, but consecutively. There is no usage of "Silesian offensives" in military history literature either, anywhere. The two operations are not related other than by the word "Silesia". Instead of offering original research, the two actual operations should be expanded further, not merged into something completely made up--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 12:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A "parent" article by definition usually comes before the "offspring" articles
Care to specify a page? For those interested, the book is about Red Army infantry divisions, and not military operations they participated in--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do they have in common? and please show a source for that. Renata (talk) 22:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per cited source (see refs of the article), they were two consecutive offensives taking place in the same region. But for the 3 months of lull in between, they could be seen as one offensive. It makes perfect sense to have an article describing the offensives in one place, and subarticles for each of the two, and then ones for the battle... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The argument for deletion is extremely weak - I don't understand why it was nominated for deletion. Ecoleetage (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There never were "Silesian offensives", just synthesis--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its synthesis, but synthesis is not included in the deletion although strongly rejected by policy. Synthesis is the opposite of forking--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've yet to see any notable tradition in the historiography of grouping these as the 'Silesian Offensives'. They are linked geographically, and by being carried out by Konev's forces, but as has been pointed out were separated by some time, by several German offensive attempts (Operation Gemse) and by differing tactical objectives. Their relationship to each other is already made clear enough by the individual articles (which I created some time ago) and by the related articles on the Vistula-Oder Offensive etc.

The main English sources for these offensives (other than memoirs of the participants) are still Duffy and Glantz, neither of whom make any use of the concept of the 'Silesian Offensives' as far as I'm aware. Esdrasbarnevelt (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2008 (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/Silesian_Offensives&oldid=1138768049"