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. I do understand the concerns of the sourcing and they should be adressed. But references should be abundant (at least in French) and this is not sufficient grounds for outright deletion so prematurely, especially since nobody is disputing that the subject itself is ok. The fact that edit wars might come from this article is also not an argument for deletion. Pascal.Tesson 07:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breton nationalism and World War II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Firstly, yes I know that the author of this had a huge task translating all of this. However, there are many problems here: number one - the French Wikipedia is not a reliable source. number two - don't trust anything on Breton nationalism from French Wikipedia, as there's been a hugh polemic about it there. Thirdly, it is completely unsourced. Fourthly, (minor point) the title is wrong - should be Breton nationalism during World War Two or Breton nationalism in World War Two. And nextly, it is one of Wonderfool's creations, and (s)he's a bit of scoundrel too. Moglex 23:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've heard of assume good faith, right? Nick mallory 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, it is completely unsourced.

Indeed, this is a significant problem.

Fourthly, (minor point) the title is wrong - should be Breton nationalism during World War Two or Breton nationalism in World War Two.

The title is just a translation of the title from the French article, though I agree that either of the alternatives you propose would be better.

it is one of Wonderfool's creations, and (s)he's a bit of scoundrel too.

What? I don't know how Robdurbar was involved in it at all, nearly all of the translation was done by me and Itsmejudith

I agree that it needs sourcing badly. But I don't see a reason why it should be deleted rather than simply left as is with the warning about unsourced material. When I translated it, I had hoped that the French article would be improved soon, that hasn't happened unfortunately. Nonetheless, it's a fairly length article on an interesting topic and I wouldn't be quick to delete it. MOXFYRE (contrib) 15:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, heavily POV, no sources. Please don't bring French WP wars to us — we have plenty of our own, thank you. Realkyhick 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source. Highly notable subject, and a collective effort should be done to weed out what can be referenced and what should be removed. I could give a hand, if needed. --Soman 11:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I looked at "historique" and the discussion page for the French article "Nationalisme breton et Seconde Guerre mondiale" and as well as the main page which describes French Wikipedia as "l’encyclopédie librement distribuable que chacun peut améliorer" Since chacun peut ameliorer their site, just as anyone can edit ours, and the historique shows that a bunch of people have been ameliorering the article, I don't agree that the source is unreliable. Mandsford 00:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:V is policy. The article has no secondary sources of any description. The French WP is a tertiary source and should not be used as a reference. Marasmusine 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mandsford Harlowraman 18:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As sourceable. Note that the French WP cannot be used as a source, but any sources they find can of course be used here. The material on the individual collaborators is sourced by the articles on them, but some WPedians would insist that at least the key sources be repeated onto this article as well. It would solve the sourcing problem to a considerable extent. DGG (talk) 19:59, 7 August 2007 (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.