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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideology of the SS[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page was nominated over a year ago due to the topic being very subjective, possessing original research, and relying on a single source. It was agreed to give the article a chance, perhaps find additional sources, and expand the material in a meaningful direction. In the past 14+ months, there has been little done with this article except some minor grammar and typo corrections. The article really has no place to go and the material covered here is effectively already discussed at SS. This article should be deleted and any useful material sent back to the main SS article OberRanks (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is a serious, well-sourced article on an important subject. The consensus last year was "keep" and the article is better than before. the allegations about so-called "subjectivity" and "original research" have never been supported by evidence. The article is based on numerous scholarly books and articles, none of which are fringe. Rjensen (talk) 08:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since this is a legit content fork from the SS article and is a sufficiently notable topic in its own right, I don't see a valid reason to delete it. The ideology of the SS seems an essential aspect, in terms of understanding the historical motivations and behavior of this organization. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator is incorrect in asserting a continued lack of multiple sources and (as far as I can tell) presence of original research. Subjectivity of the article seems contradicted by the presence of inline citations, whereas subjectivity of the sources is in the nature of historical texts; that is not grounds for deletion (although the nominator should of course feel free to add opposing views to the article and juxtapose them with the existing text). In addition, I personally see no basis for a merge as proposed by the nominator -- this article is too long and well-detailed to merge into a parent article without problems. -- BenTels (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think that the notability of the topic can be seriously questioned. The problems seem mostly concerned with complexity of the topic - whether it better to think of a single shared ideology or as a set of ideologies, it what ways was it distinct from that of the Nazi party (insofar as that can be said to have had a single coherent policy through the relevant period), did the ideology change from foundation to the last desperate days of 1945, etc. Those argue for expansion, and against merger, and it is not that the material will not be out there. We do not delete on the grounds that an article is incomplete. --AJHingston (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The article has no warning templates and no discussion of the concerns on the talk page. Hence one can hardly expect these supposed concerns to be addressed. None of the reasons listed for deletion can be found at WP:DEL-REASON. I'm concerned that this is simply a case of WP:ITBOTHERSME. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One could argue Wikipedia:CFORK here. As to the article itself, it still relies too heavily on two historians views and opinions (one quite dated). I did a few edits last year, however, as I said before, it still needs rewrite with additional sources; like a lot of things, it is a matter of time; I, myself, have been working on other articles (like most of us), as well. Kierzek (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of good improvement. This AfD appears to have drawn interest to the article by other editors which is also a good thing. -OberRanks (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better than last year, when first nominated. It just still needs some additional work. I would say at this point the article is a keep by the consensus above. I would recommend this be closed. Kierzek (talk) 21:14, 29 August 2012 (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.