Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assessment of Adolf Hitler

This page is preserved as an archive of the associated article page's "votes for deletion" debate (the forerunner of articles for deletion). Please do not modify this page, nor delete it as an orphaned talk page.

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of a page entitled Assessment of Adolf Hitler.

The result of the debate was to delete the page.

From VfD[edit]

Assessment of Adolf Hitler -- unbelievable page. It contains two things right now: a mostly amateurish psychoanalysis of the man, then immediately dismissed as "of limited value", and an explication of Daniel Goldhagen's all but discredited thesis as though it were fact and widely accepted. Any good info here could easily be merged into Adolf Hitler, which I should add also gives an explanation of Hitler's rise to power which is very different and far more accurate. -- VV 22:48, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Keep. The psychology of Hitler is a perfectly good subject for an article. The fact it is by no means a perfect article is irrelevant, it just needs work like many others. It is a daughter article of Adolf Hitler. There probably should be an Adolf Hitler series table to keep the relevant articles linked. : ChrisG 23:36, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)
  - I'm not opposed to daughter articles per se, but they should have enough content to warrant detachment, such as History of the United States. The actual usable content in this article is no more than a few sentences, which can just be a section or part of a section of Adolf Hitler. I'd feel differently if it was an expansive entry on his psychology (and then probably named Psychology as per suggestion below), but until it is we don't know that it ever will be. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- It's embarrassing, but there are lots of worse articles in Wikipedia (alas). --Zero 04:59, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- This makes a stab at being accurate, but there really is no way to know; therefore, it relaly isn't good for anything. Delete. - Litefantastic 12:45, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Had no VfD boilerplate on - added now - so needs mving to Dec 9th. Secretlondon 13:04, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)
  - I forgot to do that, my bad. I'm not sure the fourteen hour delay is worth worrying about, though. -- VV 21:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- As mentioned in the article's talk-page, renaming of the page to Psychology of Adolf Hitler would help. Else the article would appear to be Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not (Personal essays). The content seems ok and needs some NPOV. Jay 13:37, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Here's an example (and summation) of its content: The fact, if it is a fact, that Hitler was emotionally or psychologically disturbed does not explain how he was allowed to seize control of a great and cultured nation and lead it to total physical ruin and moral degradation. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 14:07, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. POV and unnecessary, not to mention not terribly well written. All the contents seem to be idle speculation with little in the way of genuine fact. Anyone could make up something like this. Unencyclpaedic, without a doubt. 80.255 21:42, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. Attempts at retro-active or remote psychoanalysis are unreliable to the point of negligence. The article presents guesses and inferences as facts. (This is an inherent problem with attempting to psychoanalyze historical characters.) The analysis is uncheckable and can not be considered fact-based. By its very nature it cannot be made NPOV. This is not an appropriate article for a fact-based encyclopedia. The few useful (and provable) facts in this article should be merged back into the main article. (If the collective decision is to keep this horrible article, at least move it to Psychoanalysis of Adolf Hitler.) Rossami 02:55, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. We have a fine article on Hitler, this crap is unverifiable. Daniel Quinlan 04:29, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Merge whatever is worthwhile, verifiable and NPOV, if any of it is, into Adolf Hitler, and delete. Tualha 23:44, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Delete. It reads like a personal essay or indeed an "assessment" which isn't neutral. --Minesweeper 04:19, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

From the talk page[edit]

I'm not sure that Hitler's psychology is of limited value. It serves as a good introduction to the topic of psychology, particularly abnormal psychology.

The assessment of Hitler's rise to power as primarily a function of some special German form of anti-semitism is simplistic to say the least. Adolf Hitler has a far more detailed and accurate account of the rise of the Nazi party and the circumstances which made it so successful.

I'm not going to dive straight in, firstly because I'm wary of an edit war, but mostly because I don't think the subject needs to be covered in two places. This article is incorrect, and the main Adolf Hitler article is both more correct and the right place for it.

Does anyone object to entirely removing that section from this article?

Onebyone 02:03, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This article has been put on VfD, but i think deciding is going to mean more than just a simple vote, so I'm starting a discussion here.

A few things seem clear to me. The article isn't wildly biased, but it's not really in an encyclopaedic style either. A delicate subject like this needs attributions for its statements, or we are left assuming that it's just the writers point of view.

There are a few points where sensationalism creeps in. "It is not known if the relationship was sexual" is a great weasel phrase, in that it implies the possibility of something strange (incest in one case, and an unconsummated marriage in the other) while maintaining the appearance of neutrality. After all, in how many marriages, especially those without children, can you honestly say you KNOW the relationship was sexual?

The article probably needs a retitle, something like "Psychology of Adolf Hitler"; I was expecting an assessment of his place in world history. DJ Clayworth 03:33, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Merge into Adolf Hitler. No need for a separate article. Tempshill 19:24, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)