Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turning points during World War II

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 delete per WP:SNOW. Hog Farm _Talk 17:36, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turning points during World War II

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

An orphan article that is essentially OR. There are any number of events that could be called a turning point in WW2, and the selection is completely subjective even if referred to in sources. It seems like an answer in search of a question, and category made longwinded Pipsally (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:54, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at it properly, I concur that it could be considered subjective in relation to the events listed as being referred to as "turning points". The article's references support the prose within the sections and the events themselves, but do not necessarily validate their inclusion in the article or why they are considered "turning points" and by who. I am interested in what the original author Loafiewa has to say before considering whether to !vote on this. I am leaning delete as it's essentially just a list under the guise of something else. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you've mentioned, the #1 issue is that the references don't actually support the claims that the battles mentioned were considered turning points. Would it be worth trying to find references to support these claims, or is the article's nature inherently OR? Loafiewa (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Loafiewa: The fact you need to ask whether it's appropriate to reference the underlying purpose of the article gives me pause for thought and confirmation that it really is nothing more than opinion, or textbook original research. Pipsally pretty much hit the nail on the head in the nomination, "It seems like an answer in search of a question". If you think you can find sufficient reliable sources to support the foundation of the article before the AfD concludes then sure, go for it. Doing so successfully may alter the course of the AfD, if perhaps very unorthodox, but doesn't change that it was seemingly founded wholly on personal opinion. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on the basis of my view above and the admission by Loafiewa that this is opinion driven. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would think that to qualify as a turning point would at a minimum require a reference or two supporting the inclusion of a particular battle, and the rationale for it. Clearly it is completely subjective. The "academic answers" down the bottom are a concession of OR; such an article should be based upon them in the first instance, not the author's opinions. I'm inclining towards delete on the unusual basis that the article could never be brought up to an acceptable standard. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:39, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a clear case of WP:OR....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too subjective, too much OR. Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Too subjective. The outcome of the war might have been very different if Hitler had maintained peace with Stalin. Objectively his decision to invade USSR (Operation Barbarosa) is thus a key event but not listed. Equally this applies to the Attack on Pearl Harbor which brought USA into war. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too subjective. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not specific enough to meet WP criteria. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as is original research. Rubbish computer Ping me or leave a message on my talk page 12:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being subjective is not necessarily a problem as long as there is some kind of WP:Academic consensus about what qualifies. This is however not the case here, as the article itself notes. The source cited for the views of historians—https://www.historynet.com/what-was-the-turning-point-of-world-war-ii.htm—makes this abundantly clear. If anything, the prevailing view seems to be that the concept of a turning point does not apply to WWII (or as the nominator put it, It seems like an answer in search of a question). It might theoretically be possible to write an article about the lack of a distinctive turning point in WWII as compared to other wars, but that would require way better sourcing and would at any rate constitute a rather significant scope change—it wouldn't be a different version of this article but rather an altogether different article. As it stands, this is essentially a list with no proper WP:LISTCRITERIA. TompaDompa (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2021 (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.